Samba 4 build system - more thoughts on scons

Tim Potter tpot at
Mon Sep 19 23:17:53 GMT 2005

On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 08:42 +1000, tridge at wrote:

> If we are going to start using scons and it can replace configure then
> I'd rather switch over completely rather than using a mix. We already
> have a mix of perl, m4 and shell, to move to a mix of python, perl, m4
> and shell doesn't seem like a step in the right direction to
> me. Unfortunately this means rewriting an awful lot of existing m4
> tests, some of which are quite intricate. So we better be very sure
> that scons is the right way to go! I have no experience with it
> myself.

If you were keen to get rid of all the shell, perl and m4 I suppose a
lot of that could be written in Python actually as part of the build.

I would like to see how just the compiling and dependency calculation
side of things goes before trying a full conversion though.

> We also need to make sure that scons can really do all the things we
> need. For example we need:
>  - an equivalent of the --some-option=blah stuff from autoconf


>  - a way to have different CFLAGS in different directories (the
>    equivalent of extra_cflags.txt that we have now)

Yes.  It totally rocks.

>  - keep the build information about a directory in that directory,
>    while not using a recursive build


>  - lots of autoconf tests for all of our HAVE_* and REPLACE_* defines

This is the bit I am slightly concerned about.  The last time I tried
each test was re-run at compile time (!) at the interface was a bit
clunky compared to the rest of the scons API.

> Are you confident that its going to be worthwhile to switch over?

I personally think if the autoconf business can be sorted out you will
never want to use make again.  (-:

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list