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

Rowland Penny rpenny at samba.org
Sat Apr 13 21:02:57 UTC 2019

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:32:12 -0400
Simo <simo at samba.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 09:03 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba-technical
> wrote:
> > 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.

I understood what he meant, I was just saying that we shouldn't mention
any distro by name.

> > 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.

No, it wasn't a 'disingenuous comment', it is a fact the that RHEL have
said that they will not be producing Samba rpm's that can be used to
provision an AD DC. So, if we take their needs it to account, we should
tear out all the AD DC code, because they do not need it. This is, of
course, ludricous, so we will not be doing it, now do you see why we
shouldn't mention or think about any specific distro ? 

> > 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
> reaction.

Yes, anything can be done, but should it be done ? Do we have to trade
off anything, can we not find another way of doing things ? (I think
you will find the answer to that is 'Yes')


> Simo.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list