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

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

[Jens Rehsack]

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@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.

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack - rehsack@gmail.com

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

[Khem Raj]

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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.

> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> Jens Rehsack - rehsack@gmail.com
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [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@gmail.com>:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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@gmail.com

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

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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.


> 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.

> 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.

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

Thats fine.

>
> Cheers
> --
> Jens Rehsack - rehsack@gmail.com
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [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@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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@gmail.com

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

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 11.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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

>
>>> 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

>
>>> And no, I'm not going to fix waf.
>>
>> Thats fine.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Jens Rehsack - rehsack@gmail.com
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: [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@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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@gmail.com

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

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 11.11.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack@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@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.

rare but that seems possible case, so adding a DEPEND along with
RDEPEND is a good idea to cover it up.

>
>>>>> 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@gmail.com
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel