Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
On 20/02/2014 9:00 PM, Sebastian Rother wrote: Dear Brad, dear Ian, Why aint the Version number of the Samba port raised after applying the security patches? From what I see the most recent version is samba 3.6.22 but OpenBSD includes 3.6.15+whatever. If all security patches to 3.6.15 where applied it should be 3.6.22 or? If just the CVE-patches got applied: What's wrong about the other Bugfixes? No new functionality was added. It would be kind if you might could answer me my question about the versioning of this port. Kind regards, Sebastian Because it's not 3.6.22. It is what is says 3.6.15+ patch level. Not all bug fixes post 3.6.15 are rolled in. Only security fixes (thanx Brad). Look, the Samba folk decided from 3.6.16 to change the build environment that had been with the 3.6 branch for 15 releases to python and waf. Unfortunately that busted how we handle shared library versioning on OpenBSD. They changed the build environment for 4.x. No issue. They could have left 3.6 that way it was seeing it was to become obsolete when the 4.1 branch was released. The world is linux and linux only, no project seems to give a rats ass about much else. If it works on linux then it must work everywhere.. Our in-ports tree waf was out of date to use. Some discussion was had about updating this. Not sure what happened after that. Ian McWilliam
Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
On 2014/02/20 22:44, Ian McWilliam wrote: On 20/02/2014 9:00 PM, Sebastian Rother wrote: Dear Brad, dear Ian, Why aint the Version number of the Samba port raised after applying the security patches? From what I see the most recent version is samba 3.6.22 but OpenBSD includes 3.6.15+whatever. If all security patches to 3.6.15 where applied it should be 3.6.22 or? If just the CVE-patches got applied: What's wrong about the other Bugfixes? No new functionality was added. It would be kind if you might could answer me my question about the versioning of this port. Kind regards, Sebastian Because it's not 3.6.22. It is what is says 3.6.15+ patch level. Not all bug fixes post 3.6.15 are rolled in. Only security fixes (thanx Brad). Look, the Samba folk decided from 3.6.16 to change the build environment that had been with the 3.6 branch for 15 releases to python and waf. Unfortunately that busted how we handle shared library versioning on OpenBSD. They changed the build environment for 4.x. No issue. They could have left 3.6 that way it was seeing it was to become obsolete when the 4.1 branch was released. The world is linux and linux only, no project seems to give a rats ass about much else. If it works on linux then it must work everywhere.. Our in-ports tree waf was out of date to use. Some discussion was had about updating this. Not sure what happened after that. Samba wants its own special waf anyway... Adding patches to revert upstream's build system changes might be appropriate, don't know..
Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:44:01PM +1100, Ian McWilliam wrote: On 20/02/2014 9:00 PM, Sebastian Rother wrote: Dear Brad, dear Ian, Why aint the Version number of the Samba port raised after applying the security patches? From what I see the most recent version is samba 3.6.22 but OpenBSD includes 3.6.15+whatever. If all security patches to 3.6.15 where applied it should be 3.6.22 or? If just the CVE-patches got applied: What's wrong about the other Bugfixes? No new functionality was added. It would be kind if you might could answer me my question about the versioning of this port. Kind regards, Sebastian Because it's not 3.6.22. It is what is says 3.6.15+ patch level. Not all bug fixes post 3.6.15 are rolled in. Only security fixes (thanx Brad). Look, the Samba folk decided from 3.6.16 to change the build environment that had been with the 3.6 branch for 15 releases to python and waf. Unfortunately that busted how we handle shared library versioning on OpenBSD. They changed the build environment for 4.x. No issue. They could have left 3.6 that way it was seeing it was to become obsolete when the 4.1 branch was released. The world is linux and linux only, no project seems to give a rats ass about much else. If it works on linux then it must work everywhere.. Our in-ports tree waf was out of date to use. Some discussion was had about updating this. Not sure what happened after that. waf is a huge pile of crap. I've switched the two ports that were using it to use something else, so you can do whatever you want with our in-tree waf, or you can use the bundled one. If i was to decide, i'll remove it. Landry
Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
hmm, on Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:44:01PM +1100, Ian McWilliam said that
Look, the Samba folk decided from 3.6.16 to change the build
environment that had been with the 3.6 branch for 15 releases to
python and waf.
Our in-ports tree waf was out of date to use. Some discussion was
had about updating this. Not sure what happened after that.
i know this won't make me any friends on ports@
but waf is not the root of all evil.
the waf philosophy is to bundle it with a given project,
to become part of the project. that is why it does
not need to be package friendly, it is not meant
to be used from a package. if it helps, think of it
as waf == configure and not cmake or such. configure
is also always bundled and nobody cares.
so the bundled version is the definite version that
should be used. (actually the problematic projects are
the ones that dont bundle it...)
it takes a bit of getting used to, but i dont see how
it's 'much worse' then megabytes of gnu style shell
code and m4.
you do a 'waf configure ${CONFIGURE_ARGS}' then
'waf build' and lastly 'waf install'. the horror.
Unfortunately that busted how we handle shared library versioning on
OpenBSD.
i am not good with shared library versioning so
i cannot comment on that, but the build result
should be binaries, and those can be renamed
and copied in many ways :]
is samba4 also waf? i'll try to have a look
when i get stable internet connection in 2 weeks
time.
-f
--
if you can't see black, white has no meaning
Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 04:33:39PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: the waf philosophy is to bundle it with a given project, to become part of the project. that is why it does not need to be package friendly, it is not meant to be used from a package. if it helps, think of it as waf == configure and not cmake or such. configure is also always bundled and nobody cares. so the bundled version is the definite version that should be used. (actually the problematic projects are the ones that dont bundle it...) it takes a bit of getting used to, but i dont see how it's 'much worse' then megabytes of gnu style shell code and m4. It's not really worse, but it's as bad. Any bundled shit like that is bound to be thoroughly untested outside linux/amd64, and hence to break horribly. The only redeeming quality of autohell is that we're so used to all the ways it can break that we can generally fix them fairly quickly.
Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
On 2014/02/20 16:33, frantisek holop wrote:
i know this won't make me any friends on ports@
but waf is not the root of all evil.
the waf philosophy is to bundle it with a given project,
to become part of the project. that is why it does
not need to be package friendly, it is not meant
to be used from a package. if it helps, think of it
as waf == configure and not cmake or such. configure
is also always bundled and nobody cares.
The thing with autoconf is, the input files are *also* bundled,
so if we need to patch them and regenerate, we can do so with ease,
and without creating the maintenance problems that often occur if
the generated files (rather than the input files) are patched.
so the bundled version is the definite version that
should be used. (actually the problematic projects are
the ones that dont bundle it...)
it takes a bit of getting used to, but i dont see how
it's 'much worse' then megabytes of gnu style shell
code and m4.
you do a 'waf configure ${CONFIGURE_ARGS}' then
'waf build' and lastly 'waf install'. the horror.
Before doing that, you usually need to patch the wscripts so that ports
can be in control of shared library version numbers, and looking at the
wip samba4 port, also patch to fix include directory ordering,
i am not good with shared library versioning so
i cannot comment on that, but the build result
should be binaries, and those can be renamed
and copied in many ways :]
It depends how they're built, you can't always do that with shared
libraries.
is samba4 also waf? i'll try to have a look
when i get stable internet connection in 2 weeks
time.
yep. Peril-sensitive glasses recommended if you look at the samba4 port.
It starts off fine, then starts to get a bit ugh around line 200,
then you see .include bsd.port.mk and think you're done and it wasn't
actually so bad.
Then the real horrors begin ;-)
Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD
On 20/02/14 6:44 AM, Ian McWilliam wrote: They changed the build environment for 4.x. No issue. They could have left 3.6 that way it was seeing it was to become obsolete when the 4.1 branch was released. The world is linux and linux only, no project seems to give a rats ass about much else. If it works on linux then it must work everywhere.. With regard to the shared library handling it is not a matter of Linux versus everyone else. It is OpenBSD versus a lot of the other major OS's in use. A lot of the other major operating systems that are in use handle shared libraries in the same manner be it Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonFly and there are few others. If people really want things to change they have to be involved with upstream projects. Just ranting and raving about things and having little to no involvement will not change anything. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
