[Pkg-samba-maint] Library handling in the Samba 4.0 package

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at samba.org
Sun Sep 8 13:52:31 UTC 2013

Hi Ivo,

On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 08:36:01PM +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > So I'd like to suggest sticking all libraries in a single package for
> > the time being. That package will be large, but not huge. It is also
> > no worse than what we do at the moment, and it allows us to move
> > forward.
> > 
> > If there is a need to split a particular library out into a separate
> > package, because there is something else that needs just that library,
> > we can still move it outside of samba-libs when we want to.
> > 
> > Thoughts? Peanuts? Rotten tomatoes?
> We talked about this at debconf, and this is what we came up with (I'm writing
> from memory, so this might not be 100% correct):
> - Samba and samba-ad-dc should be moved into 1 package (called 'samba'), which
>   ships smbd, nmbd and the samba daemon. It should behave as an samba 3-style
>   server by default, with the option to configure the samba 4-style ad dc
>   manually.
>   It would be nice to have debconf questions to configure the ad dc
>   automatically (based on the scripts currently in the ad-dc package), but
>   that probably shouldn't be a blocker for the upload to unstable.

That sounds reasonable to me, but I agree that this should not be a
blocker for uploading to unstable. It's taking long enough already,
and the current mechanism doesn't cause regressions for any existing
users of Samba 3.x.

> - The libraries should be moved into a smaller set of packages, but it is
>   unclear how this can be done. Ideally, clients (like smbclient) shouldn't
>   pull in all the libraries needed for the servers.
> It's clear that splitting the libraries will be very difficult. So if you
> think this is not realistic at this point, I don't mind if all the private
> libraries get merged into one big library package. Go for it!
Right, I'll move them all into a giant package in that case. What do
we want to do with the libraries that already live in separate
packages? They'll probably end up with circular dependencies on the
giant library package. I think it would be reasonable to keep them
with those circular dependencies for the moment, so we don't have to
remove and reintroduce them as we untangle the spaghetti.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20130908/dabb587a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-samba-maint mailing list