[Pkg-samba-maint] ldb so bump?

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:17:08PM +0200, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 11:42, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at debian.org> a écrit :
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:18:02AM +0200, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> > > Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 10:12, L. van Belle <belle at samba.org> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Hai,
> > > >
> > > > I dont know the depth or why the need to bump libldb to libdb2.
> > > > Is this only suggested to make a clearer difference between ldb 1.x and 2.x?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ( see my buildlog of 2.0.7)
> > > > http://downloads.van-belle.nl/samba4/Buildlogs/buster/ldb_2.0.7-0.1~deb10_am
> > > > d64.build
> > > > Im asking so i can learn from this, these are parts i need learn more about.
> > > >
> > > > Or is it primary because if the : schema syntax structure changes.
> > >
> > > On-disk changes, and quoting Andrew:
> > > > Furthermore, a strict reading of the ABI rules meant that a change in
> > > > the public structure, even when we know that nobody other than Samba
> > > > uses it, means we have to bump the SO version.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greetz,
> > > >
> > > > Louis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > > > Van: Mathieu Parent [mailto:math.parent at gmail.com]
> > > > > Verzonden: maandag 16 september 2019 9:44
> > > > > Aan: Andrew Bartlett; Jelmer Vernooij
> > > > > CC: Debian Samba Maintainers; belle at samba.org; Aaron Haslett;
> > > > > Garming Sam
> > > > > Onderwerp: Re: ldb so bump?
> > > > >
> > > > > Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 08:38, Andrew Bartlett
> > > > > <abartlet at samba.org> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 2019-09-15 at 18:12 +0200, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Andrew,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm preparing samba 4.11 debian package including ldb 2.0.7.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm wondering: Does this needs a so bump (libldb2)? the commit is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit 15d1ecdca6a4fbceddefd7ef4b8a9b912c067207
> > > > > > > Author: Aaron Haslett <aaronhaslett at catalyst.net.nz>
> > > > > > > Date:   Wed Mar 20 13:52:16 2019 +1300
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     ldb: version 2.0.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     * Version bump for adding index_format_fn to the schema syntax
> > > > > > > structure.
> > > > > > >     * Range index support added, allowing <= and >=
> > > > > operations to be
> > > > > > > indexed
> > > > > > >     * Improved reindex performance by setting the
> > > > > in-memory TDB hash
> > > > > > > size correctly
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     Signed-off-by: Aaron Haslett <aaronhaslett at catalyst.net.nz>
> > > > > > >     Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
> > > > > > >     Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming at catalyst.net.nz>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ldb bumps SO with the package version.  I tried to split this up but
> > > > > > wasn't successful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your quick response. OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, a strict reading of the ABI rules meant that a
> > > > > change in
> > > > > > the public structure, even when we know that nobody other than Samba
> > > > > > uses it, means we have to bump the SO version.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, and tangentially related, I would strongly recommend just
> > > > > > building ldb from the samba tarball, and not paying any attention to
> > > > > > the distinct ldb tarbals.  If you need me to prepare a
> > > > > patch to do this
> > > > > > as part of the main build I can to that for you, but I'm
> > > > > hoping you can
> > > > > > just install it during the build.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, but I'm not familiar enough with ABIs to do this now. I will bump
> > > > > the ldb lib (and thus the package will go thru NEW).
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe Jelmer can help?
> >
> > I agree we should do a bump of the package name in this case; let me
> > know if/how I can help. I can prepare a libldb2 package, if that would
> > be useful.
> 
> This I can do (and am currently doing). I'm less confident to move ldb
> building to the samba package. And I'm not (yet) convinced either.
I think this would be a fairly straightforward merge and removal of the ldb source package
(see
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#removing-pkgs),
but unless upstream gets rid of the ldb-specific version, I'm also not sure that it's a good idea.

If we start producing the libldb packages from the Samba package, they will
have the same version as the Samba source package - and that will lead to
confusion if upstream uses a different ldb-specific version for the standalone
tarballs.


oJelmer