[Samba] Updated samba 4.16.2 RPM build tools at https://github.com/nkadel/samba4repo

Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 02:46:37 UTC 2022

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:09 AM Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-06-19 at 04:00 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia via samba wrote:
> > Morning:
> >
> >
> >
> > I've updated my RPM building tools to samba 4.16.2, with some basic
> >
> > smoke testing on RHEL 8, 9, and Fedora 36. RHEL and Fedora are
> >
> > publishing more recent libraries for the dependencies, such as
> > libldb.
> >
> > But Red Hat doesn't publish the needed python3-libldb-devel package,
> >
> > in either RHEL or CentOS, so I''m compelled to include it and set the
> >
> > release number somewhat higher to ensure its available for Samba
> >
> > builds.
> Regardless Samba should always be built with the included ldb.

I'm building a matching, separate libldb RPMs with the updated ldb wih
the same version internal to Samba, modeled on the way RHEL and Fedora
do it. It would take some time and some work to split out those parts
of the internally built structure to publish the smaller ldb and other
libraries used by, say, sssd and FreeIPA as Red Hat uses them. It
would take.... more work than I've time for today.

> Recently Debian even patched to stop consuming a 'system' or 'external'
> ldb, they just build the internal one and provide the output as an
> additional package.

So, they're publishing ldb and the like directly from the Samba source
tarball? That seems workable. I've been hesitant to alter anything I
don't *have* to, to keep my packages as similar as possible to what
Red Hat and Fedora are doing upstream. it does break common practices
for Red Hat systems, but it could make sense for Samba since those are
so linked.

> As a Samba build strictly requires exactly the same version as the one
> in the samba tarball, it makes no sense to pretend ldb is provided from
> elsewhere.

Red Hat has and Fedora has cooperated with keeping them in sync. I do
admit to slight confusion. If this is the desired case, why are ldb,
tevent, talloc, and tevent tarballs published at all, rather than
keeping a copy internal to the Samba tarball? I'm not objecting, I'm
trying to understand why the duplicated effort.

> I may finally revive my MR to do this upstream, I think folks finally
> realise that the 'independent ldb' idea is just a pile of pain for
> packagers, without enough useful benefits.
> Andrew Bartlett

I'd not expect Fedora to go along with this immediately, but it seems
reasonable. It would also reduce the pain I've been going through with
bits of the build dependencies left out capriciously.

> --
> Andrew Bartlett (he/him)       https://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org
> Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT   https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
> Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT - Expert Open Source
> Solutions

More information about the samba mailing list