svn commit: r504590 - in head/net: samba46 samba47 samba48

[Timur I. Bakeyev]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 21:24, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at freebsd.org> wrote:

>
>
> Le 2 juillet 2019 20:45:21 GMT+02:00, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <
> timur at freebsd.org> a écrit :
> >On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 20:26, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at freebsd.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:17:56PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 01:23:34 +0200 "Timur I. Bakeyev"
> ><timur at freebsd.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 22:50, Baptiste Daroussin
> ><bapt at freebsd.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> Le 29 juin 2019 20:40:53 GMT+02:00, "Timur I. Bakeyev"
> ><timur at bat.ru>
> >> a
> >> > >> écrit :
> >> > >>> Tonight I hope to commit 4.10 port.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> It does not solve rhe pb, staying on the legacy libs is the
> >solution,
> >> as I
> >> > >> said even fedora is on the legacy
> >> > >>
> >> > > I've committed net/samba410.
> >> > >
> >> > > My view on the situation is that all the ports, which use
> >> > > devel/{talloc,tevent}, databases/tdb should keep
> >> > > using them, unless they are broken by using them(but that
> >shouldn't
> >> happen,
> >> > > API still should remain
> >> > > the same. The biggest difference is the drop of the dependency on
> >> Python27,
> >> > > as far as I can see.
> >> > >
> >> > > New Samba port doesn't use external databases/ldb*, so
> >security/sssd
> >> may
> >> > > use any of those freely now.
> >> > >
> >> > > The samba4[47] are outdated and should disappear in the middle of
> >the
> >> > > August.
> >> > >
> >> > > The samba48 will remain for a while, but not for long, as
> >samba411 us
> >> > > pushing from behind. It'll be (hopefully)
> >> > > the only consumer of the talloc1/tevent1/tdb1 ports, which should
> >> disappear
> >> > > together with Samba 4.8.
> >> > >
> >> > > In general I'd prefer to see SAMBA_DEFAULT to be bumped to 410,
> >but
> >> this is
> >> > > up to the portmgr.
> >> >
> >> > 4.8 goes EoL upstream mid-September (about 2 weeks before Q4), so
> >> > making 4.10 now would be good, but I believe it's just too late for
> >> > that.  A port like this needs at least a few weeks of wider testing
> >> > before it can be pushed to users of the quarterly branches who
> >expect
> >> > more stability.
> >> >
> >> > Since you said that the new libs are API compatible, is it possible
> >to
> >> > make 4.8 use the new libs?  If not, then all non-samba consumers
> >will
> >> > have to switch to the legacy libs.  They can be switched back after
> >the
> >> > 2019Q3 branch has been created (together with making 4.10 the
> >default
> >> > which probably needs an exp-run).
> >>
> >> It is and I tried to build everything with the new lib. the problem I
> >am
> >> stuck
> >> with is the following, to have ldb12 building with new talloc, I need
> >to
> >> build
> >> it without python, but I don't know what is the impact of that to end
> >> users.
> >>
> >> My understading is any samba should be able to run with any ldb
> >version
> >> which
> >> makes me wonder why we have that many version in the tree instead of
> >> always the
> >> latest one.
> >>
> >
> >No, you are wrong. It MAY look like the LDB libs are almost the same
> >crom
> >1.1-1.6 branches,
> >but there is the reason why developers don't stick to one branch cross
> >different versions of
> >Samba.
> >
> >At least, NO ONE gives the guarantee, that the intermix of LDB and
> >Samba
> >versions will
> >work as intended and you won't hit any obscure and hard to pin point
> >bugs.
> >We went through
> >that when Perl-Parse-Pidl was used cross several versions of Samba and
> >the
> >results were
> >disastrous.
> >
>
> Thanks for clarification!
>
> >
> >> For the set of library yes they are fully backward compatible
> >according to:
> >> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=talloc
> >> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=tevent
> >> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=tdb
> >>
> >> the problem is on the python binding if any.
> >>
> >> The current situation is a big mess for end users of those libraries!
> >>
> >
> >Here I absolutely agree.The said commit was trying to put in line all
> >the
> >consumers of the related libraries,
> >leaving legacy to where it belongs - behind, but we got unhappy Matt.
> >
> >As an effort to address concerns of Samba 4.8 users I altered the port,
> >with few knobs set to completely
> >build with the bundled libraries, not using any from outside.
> >
> >I hope this is good enough solution for those, who want to have a
> >mixture
> >of Samba 4.8, SSSD and other consumers
> >of talloc/tdb/ldb in one system.
> >
> >My only concern now - should it be the default for the port or just
> >documented in the UPDATING?
> >
> >With regards,
> >Timur
>
> I haven t checked yet your commit, will do tomorrow, this sounds like a
> good fix if the default is to bundle ( the build packages use the default
> options)
>
> If not can you make it default so we can branch the quarterly, and start
> building packages ?
>

Ok, let me check that it also works in such configuration at least for the
basic file server. AD almost always is the matter of manual build.

With regards,
Timur.