On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 06:34:20PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:49:48PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:06:11PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:09:53AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:04:36PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > this patch allows us besides other conversions to convert the > > > > > > dom_sid > > > > > > structure used by samba to strings and back. This structure is used > > > > > > by > > > > > > various samba libraries, but there are no public inferfaces for the > > > > > > conversion. I've seen Simo adding code to the IPA kdb plugin doing > > > > > > these > > > > > > conversions and I need them for the PAC responder as well. So I > > > > > > thought > > > > > > it might be useful to put it in a library. > > > > > > > > > > > > bye, > > > > > > Sumit > > > > > > > > > > Hi, the patch no longer applies to configure.ac, can you rebase? > > > > > > > > sure, new version attached. > > > > > > > > bye, > > > > Sumit > > > > > > The code looks good to me and the unit tests pass. > > > > > > But the patch adds a new build-time dependency that should be added into > > > contrib/sssd.spec.in. I also wonder if there should be a configure-time > > > > ah, I have this in the PAC responder patch. I will extract it there and > > add it here. > > > > > switch to compile this feature in or out, mainly because nothing is > > > using the feature at the moment? > > > > When starting the patch I was thinking the same, but then I realized > > that this would change the API/ABI of the library. So the samba header > > files are now required at compile time, but not at run time. > > > > After some discussion on irc it became clear that we what to avoid any > kind of dependencies here, because the needed header files are often not > packaged. The new version of the patch copies the definition of the > struct to reach this. > > bye, > Sumit
I'm not sure the new functions should use talloc_free() directly, I think they should use ctx->free_func, there's no guarantee that alloc_func will be talloc. _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
