proposal: merge waf build of s4 to master

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Apr 5 02:16:27 MDT 2010

On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 09:38 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:57:35PM +1000, tridge at wrote:
> > We should probably also switch over tdb at some point, as currently it
> > builds the tdb test suite against the system version of tdb if it
> > exists. This means tdb is not getting valid testing in the build farm.
> As I already said in a previous mail: As long as
> ./configure;make in our distro tarfiles still works without
> python, I'm fine with it. I am not concerned about Samba4,
> because I think setting up an AD DC can with a lot of reason
> expect a much richer environment. But anything else like the
> pure Samba3 fileserver and our exported libs tdb and talloc
> should still be buildable without python by default.


Would it be acceptable if a script built a local copy of python, then
built the Samba project?  We have seen that this can be automated (we do
so on the build farm already), and it need have no impact on the rest of
the system.  

Perhaps it would help to better understand the use case where this would
be a problem.  Could it be solved if we also signed and shipped a
tarball including python and the scripts to build the whole collection?

My concern is that this is a rather stronger condition than I understood
from your suggestion earlier in
and I want to understand better what a build system would need to do,
while still meeting your needs. 

I have to say, I've grown to like the waf system.  It is worth giving a
try - if only to see Samba build with a progress bar and coloured
highlights ;-)

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list