[Mageia-dev] Re : Re: new samba-squid subpackage proporsal

[Buchan Milne]

On Saturday, 6 August 2011 20:20:39 andre999 wrote:
> Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
> > Le vendredi 5 août 2011 21:19:06, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz a écrit :
> >> Why condicional suggest?
> >> All what i'm asking is ti do that subpackage and then i place
> >> Suggests: samba-squid-helper
> >> At squid's spec
> >> 
> >> I don't get your point.
> > 
> > I don't see either the need for a conditional suggest, what I understood
> > is : samba-common would require samba-squid-helper
> > squid would suggest samba-squid-helper
> > 
> > thus allowing squid to use the helpers without the need for the full
> > samba- common package.
> > 
> > Now, bgmilne seems to think that there's no need to split samba-common
> > for that, for a reason that I haven't understood but maybe I don't know
> > the subject enough to understand it.

My point is that splitting ntlm_auth out samba-common would make no 
difference, as:
-ntlm_auth requires smb.conf, in samba-common
-ntlm_auth (at least for this scenario) requires samba-winbind, which requires 
smb.conf, which is in samba-common
-/usr/bin/net is required (at least once) to join the domain, it is in samba-
common

> Exactly how I understand it, as well.
> At 50M, samba-common isn't tiny.

Unfortunately, due to samba's migration to auto-generated code based on IDL 
files, binaries have been growing substantially. It may be worthwhile to split 
other less commonly used binaries out of samba-common.

But, the purpose samba-common serves, having binaries and configuration files 
which are *required* by many different scenarios, should not be changed to fit 
squid. We could migrate ntlm_auth out of samba-common, but whatever package it 
is in would require samba-common anyway ...

> If there is reluctance to have a subpackage for squid alone, maybe a
> subpackage which is a superset for all packages wanting approximately the
> same components ?

Why specific to squid, when 3 packages in the distribution are commonly used 
with ntlm_auth?

> Possibly making this subpackage parallel to samba-common, created from the
> same srcrpm, with mutual declared conflicts, so the subpackage is only
> installed if samba-common isn't, and that those installing samba-common
> install a single package.

What is the cost/benefit of this?

> Both seem better options than an independant samba-squid-helper package,
> which would require mutual conflicts with samba-common.
> 
> Just some random ideas ...

I would like to understand the motivation first. What are we trying to 
achieve, besides more work for the samba maintainer?

If we are trying to reduce the disk footprint of a squid+ntlm_auth setup, the 
best approach is to move some binaries out of samba-common.

Regards,
Buchan