[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 3/3] libldb: make openldap optional, but default

[Jens Rehsack]

> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Since openldap isn't required, but used when found, allow qualified
>> users to disable the requirement to save some space.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Rehsack <sno at netbsd.org>
>> ---
>> meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb
>> index 44f061a..07a839d 100644
>> --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb
>> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb
>> @@ -4,9 +4,12 @@ SECTION = "libs"
>> LICENSE = "LGPL-3.0+ & LGPL-2.1+ & GPL-3.0+"
>> 
>> DEPENDS += "libtdb talloc libtevent popt"
>> -RDEPENDS_${PN} += "libtevent popt libtalloc openldap"
>> +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "libtevent popt libtalloc"
>> RDEPENDS_pyldb += "python libtdb libtalloc"
>> 
>> +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "ldap"
>> +PACKAGECONFIG[ldap] = ",,openldap"
>> +
>> SRC_URI = "http://samba.org/ftp/ldb/ldb-${PV}.tar.gz \
>>           file://do-not-import-target-module-while-cross-compile.patch \
>>          "
>> -- 
>> 1.9.1
>> 
>> This results from analysing why there's still an openldap ...
>> 
>> I know, having no knob to disable ldap is dirty, but there is no such switch.
>> Even more dirty, the switch in samba_4% is for embedded samba3 source-base only,
>> the ldb bundled with samba4 just uses ldap when found.
>> 
>> The patch relies on the idea of qualified users - those who know that they
>> don't want ldap, disable it everywhere and whistle.
> 
> it seems to not fix the problem completely, for exact reasons that some other package may bring in openldap and stage it before this recipe is built so you
> have exact same problem again. I think if this package is patched to add a knob to disable/enable openldap support explicitly then the fix will be complete and I am sure upstream will also accept such a patch.

NO! Please read carefully what "qualified user expected" means!

Forcing a dependency because someone else might introduce it either
is insane - and adding RDEPENDS is just hiding the symptom, not
fixing the root cause. The root cause is, that waf is broken
by design.

And no, I'm not going to fix waf.

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack - rehsack at gmail.com