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

Simo simo at samba.org
Sat Apr 13 20:32:12 UTC 2019

On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 09:03 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba-technical
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:01:29 -0700
> Jeremy Allison via samba-technical <samba-technical at lists.samba.org>
> 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 don't think taking a particular distro into account is a good idea. I
> think we should do what is best for Samba and the wider community.

I didn't read Jeremy's phrasing as an exclusive. He just pointed out
that there are needs from down-streams as well. I would object myself
to catering for a specific party exclusively.

> One big problem with talking about red hat and their engineering needs
> is, if you do that, you will have to remove most, if not all, of the AD
> DC code, they do not need it, they have publicly said so.

Rowland, I do not think this kind of disingenuous commenting is useful
in any possible way. The fact a downstream does not use a specific
feature does not mean it want it removed, nor it diminishes the feature
in any way. There are other down-streams of samba that use just the
file-system components, some just winbindd, some just some libraries.
Your statement is frankly incomprehensible to me.

> The problem with creating public API's (as I see it), you cannot just
> stop them from being public.

It's a trade-off. And anything can be done, but any action imply a


More information about the samba-technical mailing list