[Pkg-samba-maint] debian-only patches break upgrading our python3 bindings (was: Re: Bug#814928: build python3 bindings)

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 17:11 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04.09.2018 16:57, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> > 
> > On 01.07.2018 12:47, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> > > It's what the others have, as for example on Fedora:
> > 
> > http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/devel/rawhide/x86_64/p/python3-
> > talloc-2.1.14-2.fc29.x86_64.html
> > 
> > /usr/lib/.build-id
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/7c
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/7c/8702e033dd1f22e6707616088cc658d2a73a6b
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/94
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/94/e84412df74bf27231d62180ec260ebfc57095f
> > /usr/lib64/libpytalloc-util.cpython-37m-x86-64-linux-gnu.so.2
> > /usr/lib64/libpytalloc-util.cpython-37m-x86-64-linux-gnu.so.2.1.14
> > /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/talloc.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-
> > gnu.so
> > 
> > so looks valid to have it like that, and drop the symbols file as
> > it was
> > mentioned to be "the wrong approach" on #814928.
> that's what Andrew Bartlett suggested to do.  Otoh, I'm surprised
> again to see
> the multiarch triplet encoded again in the library name. But probably
> it won't hurt.
> 
> Matthias

Of course then the Red Hat folks wanted to take the Debian (or similar)
approach, and which point I just felt totally exhausted.

I'm also starting to forget why we needed this in the first place,
other than a way to say 'py3'.  I don't think we can practically have
two different python versions on the system, because Samba will link
against one of them specifically. 

> Btw, is somebody working on the ldb and tdb bindings? I remember that
> there are
> build issues with tevent and Python3.
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba