proposal: merge waf build of s4 to master

[tridge at samba.org]

Hi Volker,

 > Is that also in the final tar.gz? I see a difference in
 > having to ship python to the end-user just to be able to
 > compile Samba3 to having to install python/autoconf/whatever
 > to create the final configure/make. 

no, at this stage we are proposing to ship python to a very small
number of users.

It would have a convenient script to install it within the Samba build
tree. I would expect that we'll find very few downloads of Samba will
be of the -with-python tarball, as pretty much everyone has it these
days. There will be some, but it will be a tiny proportion of all
downloads.

The vast majority of people who are building and installing Samba
won't need this. Even you won't need it for the vast majority of your
work on Samba. 

 > How does the build system affect sharing code?

Please see my previous answer to this.

The "we should componetise" argument that you answered with doesn't
address the QA problems. We have quite often had problems where
someone makes a chance for s3 that breaks s4 and vice-versa. 

We will save a lot of these headaches if the common components always
build in the same way, and if we reach the goal that Metze has
outlined, which is that Samba developers build in the top level and
always end up building both branches every time.

You spending a few extra seconds downloading 11M for one or two of
your customers is a pretty trivial price to pay for these types of
gains. You can charge them for the bandwidth if you have to.

Cheers, Tridge