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

[Jens Rehsack]

> Am 11.11.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> it would translate into a build time dependency

Which is reasonable:

<bluelightning> sno: RDEPENDS just means that it's going to be the packaging tasks of the recipe depending on those of the recipes producing the named packages, as opposed to DEPENDS where do_configure depends on do_populate_sysroot of the mentioned items

Otherwise, build_1 (which has no other recipe requiring openldap) would build
without openldap support but sucking in the package, build_2 would be build
with ldap support.

>>>> 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?
> 
> May be/maybe not I dont know, I even dont know whats broken in waf,
> you did not explain that

Having an option or not, in autoconf you can set

ac_cv_HAVE_LDAP_H=no

and the test results in "checking for ldap.h: no" - regardless the
existence of ldap.h. waf doesn't have such an option, has it?

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack - rehsack at gmail.com