proposal: merge waf build of s4 to master
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Mon Apr 5 05:15:56 MDT 2010
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:09:41PM +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> > Another question: What does the pure Samba3 end-user doing a
> > compile gain from a conversion to waf?
> Not nearly as much as developers gain, but there are a few things:
> - install/uninstall work properly (ie. really removes all files and
> directories on uninstall)
> - correct use of system vs in-tree headers, so less likely to get a
> broken build
I would call these ones bugs in the current Makefile.in.
Can you please file bugs about it in bugzilla.samba.org, so
that they are not forgotten?
> - bundled library renames, so they can safely install on a system
> that has packages that rely on talloc, tdb etc without breaking
> their system
What does that mean?
> - able to use rpath if they want to, to avoid having to muck about
> with their ld.so.conf
What blocks us from putting that into Makefile.in as well?
> - if they are installing from git, then they can update and re-build
> reliably without having to do make clean idl_full
Ok, I was asking about end-users downloading a .tar.gz from
> - detection of conflicts between system and in-tree libs, so you
> don't end up with two instances of talloc in one binary (and thus
> possible corruption)
Again, this is a bug in the Makefile.in.
> and most importantly of all, a bit of colour in their terminal when
> building :-)
> Perhaps none of these are enough by themselves to justify a change of
> build system for Samba3, but I think the gains for the developers will
> be more worthwhile.
Sure, but I would guess the ratio of developers versus users
differs a bit between Samba3 and Samba4.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the samba-technical