[PROPOSAL] Re-bundle (stop producing tarballs for) ldb?

[Andrew Bartlett]

ldb 2.0.0 was marked in master just today, not out of some great
fanfare but because an externally exposed API/ABI changed and the .so
naming rules require it (as we strictly bind the two things for
simplicity). 

ldb has been a great project, but aside from sssd and the now defunct
openchange, it simply hasn't taken off, certainly not in the way that
talloc and tdb have become central parts of the Linux ecosystem.

Samba development and Samba AD DC needs drive ldb, and it isn't going
to be an independent project any time soon.

So, I'm wondering if we should stop producing ldb tarballs.  We already
have to bump version numbers strictly branch with Samba releases and
have complex build logic to ensure we don't build with the wrong
version.

For Samba the ABI has always turned our to be a tricky beast, even
outside the module stack (where no promies were made) we quickly found
that using Samba with the 'wrong' ldb version was just looking for
pain.  

After a muck-up where a master version of ldb was published into debian
(and so breaking existing setups), our distributors have wondered the
same as well.  Specifically I recall a discussion on the debian
packaging list about if the ldb package should just be built from the
Samba tarball instead.

So this is my proposal: that we build ldb like we build libndr and
libsmbclient.  Others can still build against it as a public library,
but we never build against a 'system' version.  We should have an
option to keep it private as well, just like the current default build.

What do others think?

Metze,

You might want to hold off producing the tarballs until we decide this.

Thanks!

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett
https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team         https://samba.org
Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT   
https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba