On (07/09/16 08:46), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Lukas Slebodnik
> On (06/09/16 21:38), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:49 PM, lslebodn
>>> lslebodn commented on a pull request
>>> IMHO, it might be better to close this PR.
>>> If we decide to dor support for libini_config < 1.1 or 1.2
>>> then it will be a different patch anyway. @see my previous comment
>>Please, take a look on Jakub's comment and see what he proposed.
> Do you mean:
>>jhrozek commented on a pull request
>>> - Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and older
>>12.04 is often used (for example travis-ci still offers only this
>>distro) and ends its life in 2017.
>>On one hand, it's unlikely that users of LTS distributions will run
>>master, they will probably only run sssd-1-13 or some PPAs, on the other
>>hand, I don't see too much value except for cleaner code.
>>So all in all I suggest we nack this patchset for now and push it when
>>Ubuntu 12.04 goes EOL.
>>Does that sound like a reasonable compromise?
> If we decide to drop support for older versions of libini_config
> then we should also remove unnecessary wrappers in src/util/sss_ini.c.
> and replace sss_ini* functions with direct usage of ini_*.
> Therefore this patchset will need to be changed.
> IMHO, it will be much simpler to create new patch-set then.
>>Anyways, I'm fine with closing this PR and opening a new one when we
>>can drop support to libini_config < 1.3.
>>Just for the record, from this whole discussion I could see that
>>dropping support to augeas in order to use libini is something that
>>shouldn't and is not going to happen any time soon
> I do not understand how is this patch-set related to replacing augeas
> with libini_config.
Well, this patch set is _not_ related to replacing augeas with
libini_config, we just will fall under the same issue in the future
when doing that.
If we introduce a new code that will deal with configuration files the
least I would expect is that old systems could have some benefit from it
in the same way they can have benefit from the current code.
Maybe you did not get
my point and therefore you get wrong expectations.
I do not expect that old systems will benefit from new features.
Currently rhel6 cannot:
* validate configuration file because it has old version of libini_config
* be integrated with "CIFS Client" because it does not have necessary
So, if I'm the one writing or reviewing the code with this
discussion in mind
I'd opt for something that is present in the major distros and for
sure libini > 1.3 is not. So, why not use augeas instead of it? :-)
Augeas is optional dependency libini_config-1.2 is optional dependency.
I cannot see a conflict for replacing it :-)
But it also does not make a sense
because we should drop manipulation with sssd.conf
> a) augeas is an optional dependency
> if BUILD_IFP
> if BUILD_CONFIG_LIB
> pkglib_LTLIBRARIES += libsss_config.la
> b) replacing augeas with libini_config requires minimal version 1.2
> which is already optionally used in master.
> c) IIRC discussion from devel meeting. Some developers prefer
> to drop feature for manipulation of sssd.conf and write from
> scratch if there will be new requirements. Current version is very
>>as well and for the
>>very same reasons that this patch wasn't accepted. We could, in the
>>best (or worst?) case scenario support/depend on both due to
>>compatibility with elder systems, but I can't see any advantage on
> I do not suggest to support all features in old systems.
> But I would like to support at least minimal feature set (ldap+krb5).
> And parsing configuration file is required for minimal feature set :-)
We wasted a lot of time on this patch set that could have been used
reviewing more useful patches on the queue.
Please, close the PR if you want to.
I'm sorry if you think we wasted a lot of time.
I did not want to close PR without proper explanation why I would
prefer to keep this optional code in sssd. It would be impolite
to close PR without general agreement.