-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merge lib389 into the 389-ds-base source tree #2422
Comments
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-08-23 06:42:11 Metadata Update from @Firstyear:
|
Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2017-08-23 16:46:55
We can still merge lib389 into older versions/branches of DS, then we can maintain it for all versions. it would make backporting easier. How is this going to impact the python-lib389 package? Are we just going to make it a subpackage of 389-ds-base? |
Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2017-08-23 16:46:57 Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:
|
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-08-24 04:04:49 Yes, that's true. We could target 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 with this I expect, and then it will carry on with 1.4.x. I would say we make it a subpackage of 389-ds-base, it would be the easiest approach. It gives us one source tree, and one rpm spec file, which seems like the easiest solution. :) |
Comment from vashirov (@vashirov) at 2017-08-24 06:51:44 I think it's not worth to backport it to 1.3.6, because we won't be able to use it in downstream (we can't put it in z-stream). 1.3.7 is a better target. |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-08-24 10:02:36 How will we run the tests on 1.3.6 then? We'll need two source copies of 389-ds-base then? I think a better idea is merge it back to 1.3.6 as well, but have the specfile not build the python-lib389 parts for zstream- just introduce them with 1.3.7. This way we still get the ability to test 1.3.6, but we don't add to parts to zstream. That would be up to @mreynolds389 as he is the master of rpm specs at this time, |
Comment from vashirov (@vashirov) at 2017-08-24 10:35:42
It depends on your workflow. We use rpm installations and (versioned) tests from git master.
We can't land this in downstream 1.3.6. Only fixes are accepted at this moment. Even if it will be in upstream 1.3.6 branch, it's no use for us. |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-08-24 11:21:40 We don't (at least I don't, I can't speak for @mreynolds389, @tbordaz or @elkris ) use rpms, we use the source tree. We don't plan to land it in downstream 1.3.6, just upstream. I think it will make our lives a lot easier from the upstream view point, even if we don't push it to zstream. I know that it's fix only at the moment :) |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-10-11 17:27:01 |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-10-11 17:27:02 Metadata Update from @Firstyear:
|
Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2017-10-11 17:33:28 Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:
|
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-10-12 08:46:30 commit 9dccfea commit 0658297 @mreynolds389 The master commit and push has the full history, but 1.3.7 is a single squashed patch. The result isn the code is the same and patches will apply on top of both correctly, but it allows you to more easily extract the single 1.3.7 patch for downstream spec files as needed. |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-10-12 17:26:53 Metadata Update from @Firstyear:
|
Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2017-10-12 17:27:54 Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:
|
Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2019-08-23 20:05:40 Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:
|
Cloned from Pagure issue: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49363
Issue Description
The issue is that we have a split: we have tests in
389-ds-base/dirsrvtests that are often version dependent. They relate
to features of the server, or issues in specific versions of the server
that may not exist in older versions. Today we kind of stradle the line
of "it's a bit of both". We have tests in 389-ds-base that depend on
versions of lib389 - but lib389 moves quickly and has little ability to
distinguish 389-ds-base versions.
-- Merging lib389 to 389-ds-base
One proposal is to merge them. We would mix in lib389 and the
dirsrvtests into lib389 tests. It is often the case that lib389's
features are bound tightly to a version of directory server.
Pros:
with that version of DS
lib389 and the tests in say 1.3.5 or 1.2.11.x are unlikely to work with
latest lib389.
administration (ie no need to worry about backward compatibility).
are done.
Cons:
to older versions.
At this time, this is supported by @droideck and @vashirov . @tbordaz Has commented on irc that the design of lib389 was always that we "could" merge in the future.
I'd love to see comments from @mreynolds389 @tbordaz and @elkris about this topic.
I would suggest during the merge, we can make lib389 a dependency of the 389-ds-base rpm too, and we can also ship our python2/3 libs quite easily with this change. This would really open the door to using the new ds* cli tools, and usage of lib389 by other projects (with a current disclaimer the api isn't yet stabilised).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: