On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 14:55 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote: > Okay, the revert will be pushed by autobuild soon. Sorry - but this is > really confusing. We should make it clear that these are for generic LDB > databases. But why we don't move them into the main LDB? I don't think it's unclear that they are generic. Either way, I agree that it might make sense to move them into upstream LDB or, alternatively, ldb-samba.
Cheers, Jelmer > Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 14:24 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote: > > > >> But aren't these code places only using SAMDB LDBs? As far as I've seen > >> these are only SAMDB LDBs. > >> > > Those two places are not SAM databases. ntptr (the printer database) > > uses them. I also think that e.g. the secretsdb could use them. > > > > That's not the point though. Just because these functions are just used > > by samdb at the moment does not mean they should be a part of SAMDB. > > They're generic functions and as such should be usable by other parts of > > Samba. If we did make them specific to samdb, I think we should change > > their prefixes to avoid confusion. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jelmer > > > > > >> Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 11:41 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> The branch, master has been updated > >>>> via 8a2ce5c s4:remove "util_ldb" submodule and integrate the > >>>> three gendb_* calls in "dsdb/common/util.c" > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Can you please revert this patch? The gendb_ calls are not used in just > >>> dsdb, a quick grep shows there are other places as well: > >>> > >>> ntptr/simple_ldb/ntptr_simple_ldb.c > >>> utils/net/drs/net_drs_showrepl.c > >>> > >>> They should not have to rely on the samdb code. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Jelmer > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
