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

[Jens Rehsack]

> Am 11.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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-${PV}.tar.gz \
>>>>          file://do-not-import-target-module-while-cross-compile.patch \
>>>>         "
>>>> --
>>>> 1.9.1
>>>> 
>>>> This results from analysing why there's still an openldap ...
>>>> 
>>>> I know, having no knob to disable ldap is dirty, but there is no such switch.
>>>> Even more dirty, the switch in samba_4% is for embedded samba3 source-base only,
>>>> the ldb bundled with samba4 just uses ldap when found.
>>>> 
>>>> The patch relies on the idea of qualified users - those who know that they
>>>> don't want ldap, disable it everywhere and whistle.
>>> 
>>> it seems to not fix the problem completely, for exact reasons that some other package may bring in openldap and stage it before this recipe is built so you
>>> have exact same problem again. I think if this package is patched to add a knob to disable/enable openldap support explicitly then the fix will be complete and I am sure upstream will also accept such a patch.
>> 
>> NO! Please read carefully what "qualified user expected" means!
>> 
> 
> I understand it well. no we don't want any user tiers here. We should
> tend towards becoming user friendly
> A qualified user is well equipped to maintain a patch with a
> RDEPENDS_${PN}_remove in his layer.

Both aspects have their pros and cons, but ...

>> Forcing a dependency because someone else might introduce it either
>> is insane - and adding RDEPENDS is just hiding the symptom, not
> 
> its bringing determinism to build thats an important aspect.

... this argument beats them all. Nothing to add ;)

Anyway - for determinism, openldap should be in depends then, not
RDEPENDS, shouldn't it?

>> fixing the root cause. The root cause is, that waf is broken
>> by design.
> 
> such sweeping statements have to backed by reasoning otherwise no one
> will take them seriously. IMO if you atleast report
> this to waf community someone else might be able to help fixing
> whatever the problem is.

But shouldn't the samba maintainer do that?

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

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack - rehsack at gmail.com