[PROPOSAL] Release ldb with Samba on the 6-montly release cycle
simo at samba.org
Sat Apr 13 20:35:29 UTC 2019
On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 07:34 +1200, Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
> On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 15:27 +0200, Andreas Schneider via samba-
> technical wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:36:59 AM CEST Andrew Bartlett via
> > samba-
> > technical wrote:
> > > Looping back to the top of this thread to put a reduced proposal.
> > >
> > > I've posted a new merge request here:
> > > https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/merge_requests/374
> > >
> > > The scope is reduced to aligning the ldb version with the main
> > > Samba
> > > version, so ldb would share the Samba release cycle. There is no
> > > merge
> > > with the main Samba build, just a change to the version number
> > > calculations (and so release process).
> > >
> > > The primary motivation here is to decouple ABI changes (eg adding a
> > > new
> > > function) from release points, and so slowing down to a 6-month
> > > release
> > > cycle matching the main release cadence of Samba so that new
> > > features
> > > have time to bake in master before they are released.
> > Yes, I absolutely agree that SO_VERSION number should be decoupled
> > from
> > release version numbers. This should also be done for the other
> > libraries.
> > If I understand you correctly there will be a libldb release:
> > libldb-4.11 and then libldb-4.12
> > Samba 4.11.1 and 4.11.2 will depend on libldb-4.11.
> The current WIP patch has the main Samba version string directly used
> for ldb, therefore allowing ldb to change during a release stream (eg
> for a security release).
> Please look carefully at the MR for the details, I would certainly not
> wish any more miscommunication!
> > If I understood it correctly than this sounds like a good idea! :-)
> Great! I was sure we could find some common ground.
> So from here we just need to know if this (eg) libldb-4.11 needs a
> distinct tarball to be generated by the release team.
> Now that we are clear on what is being talked about, I have also re-
> opened this:
> If we decide not to burden the release team with a distinct tarball,
> then distributors building ldb would just need to use the main samba
> tarball and add a 'cd lib/ldb' to their build scripts.
> Finally, this is all just WIP proposals, other variations on this
> approach are most welcome. But if you do agree with any of the above
> please mark that on the relevant MR so I can keep track.
> Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of the above,
Creating a separate tarball should be an automatic process that takes
no manual work, and will make life easier for people that just want to
build *and* distribute ldb and nothing else.
More information about the samba-technical