proposal: merge waf build of s4 to master

[Volker Lendecke]

On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:26:26PM +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> yes, it's all fixable. The level of effort involved in fixing all
> these things may not be small however.
> 
> I think Kai has noticed some other s3 build bugs as well while he's
> been developing the waf build for s3.

He's put some bugs into bugzilla, thanks for that!

> I tried to explain it a bit on the wiki page:
> 
>   http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Waf
> 
> The problem is this. Imagine you are building tdb as a shared lib in
> Samba3, and the build decides to use the in-tree version instead of
> the system version as the system version is too old.

Just don't build tdb as a shared library. If the system one
does not fit your needs, link it statically.

> So you end up with libtdb.so. Then you install that in
> /usr/local/samba/lib.
> 
> Now you have a problem. What do you put in ld.so.conf? If you put
> /usr/local/samba/lib first then any existing apps that depend on tdb
> will get the new version. That will be a version they've never been
> tested against. If you don't put /usr/local/samba/lib first then Samba
> will get the system version.
> 
> So the solution is to auto-rename the library to something else. In
> the waf build a suffix is added, based on the name of the package
> being built. So if you are building libtdb.so as part of a s4 build
> then you end up with libtdb-samba4.so. That guarantees no conflicts,
> and ld.so.conf can contains paths in any order.

That's scary. How many libtdb-foobar.so will we end up with?
This is just a debugging nightmare.

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100405/8f5ef938/attachment.pgp>