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

[L.P.H. van Belle]

Hello Andrew, (and others). 

As package builder, i like it, but if you go that road, why leave out the others.

It would help a lot on packaging samba, not just for me, but all packagers, 
because basicly, now it is a lots of work to maintain the samba packages with all its the dependecies.

Now, Samba has a 10 packages checkup to build, before you can even think on building samba. 
Which is in my opinion a lot, any reduction on that number of pre-depends is an improvement in my opinion.


Greetz,

Louis


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: samba-technical 
> [mailto:samba-technical-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens 
> Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
> Verzonden: maandag 8 april 2019 5:27
> Aan: Upstream Samba Technical Mailing list
> CC: Stefan Metzmacher
> Onderwerp: [PROPOSAL] Re-bundle (stop producing tarballs for) ldb?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>