On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 08:03:28AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
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.
Thank you for catching this, you are completely right, new version
attached.
bye,
Sumit