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

[Baptiste Daroussin]

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 The samba4[47] are outdated and should disappear in the middle of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 ?

Thank you,
Best regards,
Bapt