Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

Ian McWilliam-2
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Our in-ports tree waf was out of date to use.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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

Stuart Henderson-6
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..

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

Landry Breuil-6
In reply to this post by Ian McWilliam-2
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

frantisek holop
In reply to this post by Ian McWilliam-2
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

Marc Espie-2
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

Stuart Henderson-6
In reply to this post by frantisek holop
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 ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: question related to the samba port on OpenBSD

Brad Smith-14
In reply to this post by Ian McWilliam-2
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.