samba - Jun 2022 - Updated samba 4.16.2 RPM build tools at https://github.com/nkadel/samba4repo

Also, it's in the EPEL8 FAQ and the way to get the missing package in 
RHEL8 is documented there:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#RHEL_8_has_binaries_in_the_release,_but_is_missing_some_corresponding_-devel_package._How_do_I_build_a_package_that_needs_that_missing_-devel_package?

Regards,

Vincent

,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,
Vincent S. Cojot, Computer Engineering. STEP project.
_.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Comite Micro-Informatique.
_.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Linux Xview/OpenLook resources page
_.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'
http://step.polymtl.ca/~coyote  _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._ coyote at
NOSPAM4cojot.name

They cannot scare me with their empty spaces
Between stars - on stars where no human race is
I have it in me so much nearer home
To scare myself with my own desert places.       - Robert Frost



On Sun, 19 Jun 2022, Nico Kadel-Garcia via samba wrote:
> Morning:
>
> I've updated my RPM building tools to samba 4.16.2, with some basic
> smoke testing on RHEL 8, 9, and Fedora 36. RHEL and Fedora are
> publishing more recent libraries for the dependencies, such as libldb.
> But Red Hat doesn't publish the needed python3-libldb-devel package,
> in either RHEL or CentOS, so I''m compelled to include it and set
the
> release number somewhat higher to ensure its available for Samba
> builds.
>
> It's peculiar, because the python3-ldb-devel package is in the
> published .spec file for libldb. Something has to be specifically
> deleting or excluding it from publication in the RHEL software
> channels. I've seen this before  for "lmdb-devel", which was
only
> available in the "Devel" channel, for software required to build
> Samba. It seems kind of personal when they play these peek-a-boo games
> with software built all at the same time, used internally for building
> other software, but not included in their public repositories.
>
> At some point, this starts looking like malice, possibly to interfere
> with people like me who compile Samba with full domain controller
> features enabled. Hindering competition with freeipa and the
> complexities of sssd would be really petty, but this has happened
> several times now, and it's gotten suspicious.
>
> Nico Kadel-Garcia
>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>

On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 6:42 AM <vincent at cojot.name>
wrote:
>
>
> Also, it's in the EPEL8 FAQ and the way to get the missing package in
> RHEL8 is documented there:
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#RHEL_8_has_binaries_in_the_release,_but_is_missing_some_corresponding_-devel_package._How_do_I_build_a_package_that_needs_that_missing_-devel_package?
I've previously submitted the suggested bug reports. This has been
going on since RHEL 8 was published. It's more apparent now because
RHEL 8 caught up with the current Samba. talloc, and ldb releases, and
I'd hoped that I could finally use the RHEL: published RPMs and speed
up my testing cycles. I can't precisely because of these deliberate
exclusions, and it makes my building and testing of development rigs
of Samba much more difficult.

"Build the missing -devel package" is not very helpful.   I do build
it myself, and have been doing so for years, and it's gotten tiresome.
The exclusions cannot be accidental, they've been occurring since at
least the initial release of RHEL 8. It also cannot be accidental that
CentOS, RockyLinux, and AlmaLinux are mirroring the practice. his
problem is not a one-off or an oversignt. This has been going on for
at least 3 years. I've bug reported it before to Red Hat. The last
time I got a meaningful response, it concerned the similar problem of
lmdb-devel, which they finally relented and included in their standard
channels.

Vincent, I'm sorry to be so snarky about Red Hat's behavior, but
it's
hindering my long-active work to provide production capable, fully
featured Samba releases rather than the feature stripped releases Red
Hat has elected to publish. I've been publishing ports of Samba to
commercial operating systems since.... 1995, way back with SunOS
4.1.4, well before Red Hat's first release. I bring it up here so that
other folks dealing with RHEL and Samba know what is going on, and
understand that Red Hat is hindering Samba development work in this
fashion. If it were once, I'd chalk it up to an accidental packaging
exclusion. But it's been 3 years and two major operating system
releases now. It may not be malice, but it's not supportive.

Generally, I've been a big Red Hat fan and supporter of it for
servers. I've personally deployed approximately 20,000 Red Hat
systems, and I've been publishing Samba backports for RHEL since...
2013. This is an ongoing problem caused by a very specific Red Hat
policy. I bring it up here for the Samba developers to be very
specifically aware of. It's not a general architectural problem for
RHEL and its clones. That makes it seem deliberate, and it's been
going on so long that it's hard to understand it as anything but a
deliberate hindrance.

Nico Kadel-Garcia