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

[Simo]

On Sun, 2019-04-14 at 08:38 +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 17:24:24 -0400
> Simo <simo at samba.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 22:02 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba-technical
> > wrote:
> > > 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.  
> > 
> > I do not see any need to self censor on the fact we have important
> > down streams, I have no qualms mentioning Ubuntu, Debian, Suse or any
> > other distribution in an argument.
> > 
> > > > > 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 ?   
> > 
> > No, and there is no *need* from RHEL to remove anything, your
> > statement is a non-sequitur. The fact a downstream does not use or
> > even need a feature doesn't mean we need to remove anything. On the
> > other hand, as Jeremy stated, if a downstream *needs* a feature we do
> > factor that need in our plans to keep and maintain specific features,
> > we always had, heck we even came up with new pluggable interfaces to
> > help down-streams needs, multiple times, and this generally improved
> > Samba, not always, but often.
> 
> You cannot have it both ways, either we supply just what a major user
> needs or you ignore the fact that they don't need something.

Sorry but this is a false dichotomy, you can both supply what someone
need *and* also disregard the fact they do not need something, they are
not conflicting items.

> The same goes for something that a user definitely needs, if Samba
> decides that it shouldn't supply something any more because it is
> better for Samba, then it should done and in fact has been been done,
> remember Openchange ?

As always a trade off, you prove my point.

> This is why, in my opinion, we shouldn't think about any user (large or
> small) when making decisions about anything, we should always do what
> is best for Samba.

In order to find what's the best for samba you need to evaluate what
its users need the most. There is no point in producing software in a
void. If you damage your downstream, you are not doing what's the best
for Samba, as what's the best is measured in its utility to the users.

> > > > > 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 ?  
> > If it was done it was because we thought it was a good idea and there
> > was enough pressure and momentum for us to deliver it.
> > 
> > > 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')  
> > 
> > We can always find other, better ways, especially in retrospect with
> > the benefit of hindsight ...
> > My answer is that it is always a trade off, and the perception as well
> > benefits may change over time.
> > 
> > Simo.
> > 
> > 
> 
> No Simo, we should always do what is best for Samba.

You should define what that is though, otherwise we may also adopt the
motto of doing only what's the best for humanity!

Simo.