Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:45:21 +0200 From: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?T=C4=B3l_Coosemans?= <tijl@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r504590 - in head/net: samba46 samba47 samba48 Message-ID: <CALdFvJELwpc8MVzuEEhCuAWL3-UKz1_dPd%2BAuzr%2BcUynoUgzsg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20190702122219.lqecdgrgpkhtkeqk@ivaldir.net> References: <201906192240.x5JMequU017187@repo.freebsd.org> <20190628070305.eim4o3d77iyti5d5@ivaldir.net> <20190629160445.051f2426@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <CALdFvJHK0aBF6oLTFNnTiUyrmFUHCPYm3-k7S3_-FpYTHW4WSA@mail.gmail.com> <F208C261-18D8-4E5A-BABE-A9E6D8A52B5B@FreeBSD.org> <CALdFvJENynqPAkKSf5ueuG2nBMr9tckikzZOQv9caXtgcwZg4A@mail.gmail.com> <20190702141756.1f0b14b7@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <20190702122219.lqecdgrgpkhtkeqk@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 20:26, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:17:56PM +0200, T=C4=B3l Coosemans wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 01:23:34 +0200 "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@freebsd.org=
>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 22:50, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
> wrote:
> > >> Le 29 juin 2019 20:40:53 GMT+02:00, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@bat.ru=
>
> a
> > >> =C3=A9crit :
> > >>> 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 The samba4[47] are outdated and should disappear in the middle of the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.
> For the set of library yes they are fully backward compatible according t=
o:
> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Dtalloc
> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Dtevent
> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=3Dtimeline&l=3Dtdb
>
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALdFvJELwpc8MVzuEEhCuAWL3-UKz1_dPd%2BAuzr%2BcUynoUgzsg>