On (06/09/16 21:38), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:49 PM, lslebodn ><[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. 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 limited. >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 >that. > 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 :-) LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
