Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (22/11/16 16:29), Petr Spacek wrote:
>> On 22.11.2016 16:27, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 22.11.2016 16:04, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> the recent changes with regard to
>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Integration_Improvements
>>>> beg a question whether we should invest into supporting client-only builds 
>>>> in
>>>> FreeIPA build system.

Note that the Integration efforts don't really apply. The client-only
install is for doing client enrollment and integration can mean lots of
things.

>>>>
>>>> Right now, FreeIPA can be built on all architectures we care about so 
>>>> there is
>>>> no incentive to invest into client-only build - this applies to binary/RPM
>>>> builds.
>>>
>>> Client-only build lowers the barrier for porting IPA to new platforms 
>>> (porting
>>> only client code is *much* easier than porting the whole thing), so I would
>>> very much prefer if we kept it.
>>
>> Understood.
>>
> Agree about portability
> 
> But upstream spec file needn't have such relicts.
> The upstream spec file is pure fedora specific.

The upstream spec is what is used to document and verify that the
client-only build actually works.

I also think it is a worthy goal to maintain.

>> Wondering out loud: What prevents the "porter" from doing full build and then
>> packaging only client bits? Yes, he has to install come of the dependencies
>> for the build to pass but still, it is way easier than actually making server
>> fully functional.

It is not an insignificant amount of dependencies to build all of IPA.

>> Petr, are you going to allocate time for this soonish or should I open a
>> ticket and forget about it for now?

IMHO this should be covered under the build refactoring to avoid
regressions.

rob

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to