Samba 4 build system - more thoughts on scons

Tim Potter tpot at
Sun Sep 18 21:42:01 GMT 2005

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 13:44 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

> The dependency on python was a problem for some proprietary systems,
> mostly as it is not as widely spread as perl. I'm not sure which ones
> (AIX perhaps?) as I'm not into commercial unixes. Tim Potter did a
> check on the buildfarm once, I think, and found that there were quite
> some that did not have python.

Yes it was only the proprietary unicies that didn't have Python
installed.  I think python is considered a base package for every
flavour of Linux so it's pretty much guaranteed to be there.

> > I don't think there is any value in developing a samba-specific
> > build system. Frankly, I think we would all rather be working on
> > Samba than on the build system. I would support requiring scons or
> > GNU Make, but I don't see the point in simply rewriting what we
> > have today in python (is that what you are suggesting here?).
> No, we'd just be using scons, but there would be the 'fallback' a
> script that can generate a configure script and using the
> existing scons build files. This would only be there for people that
> don't need to change to config but just pull down the tarball and run
> ./configure && make.

It will be hard and annoying to maintain two build systems at once,
although the build farm would help out finding breakages.  I might try
and get a demo in a branch going just so people can try it out.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list