[PROPOSAL] Re-bundle (stop producing tarballs for) ldb?
asn at samba.org
Thu Apr 11 07:37:05 UTC 2019
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:01:29 AM CEST Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Red Hat is the most popular Linux distro with a large
> user base and we need to take their engineering
> needs into account.
I think if we release a library as a separate tarball and make an API promise,
we should not stop in doing so. If we can't make such a promise we should not
have released libldb in the first place.
Yes, it happens that an API design is not good. That happened several times
for me with libssh, so I introduced a complete new API keeping the old API and
semantics functioning and I have probably to keep them around forever. For the
latest version I rewrote known_hosts handling from scratch as the initial
implementation was not flexible enough. If an API should not be used anymore
you can mark them as deprecated in a later release.
libldb is not the only library out there having these issues. Also what would
you say if lmdb would change it's internals so that the API is the same but it
would function completely differently? We expect stable code from others and
if we release a library with a promise we should keep that.
There are users of libldb beside of Samba and they choose libldb because they
thought we provide a great project which is maintained, taken care of and
offers a stable API.
My fear is that if we start changing libldb internals and break something
which another party depends on, they will just fork it. And this is something
I really want to avoid.
What makes it impossible to provide a stable API for libldb and keep libldb as
Andreas Schneider asn at samba.org
Samba Team www.samba.org
More information about the samba-technical