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