proposal: merge waf build of s4 to master

simo idra at
Sun Apr 11 12:28:57 MDT 2010

On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 12:57 +1000, tridge at wrote:
> Hi Simo,
> Assuming the waf build goes into master, would you have any objections
> to me switching ldb in the build farm over to using a waf based build?
> ldb hasn't built correctly in the build farm for over a year now, as
> we never got the library dependencies right in the farm.
> I've setup 'waf dist' for ldb so that it produces a distribution
> tarball that includes all the dependent libraries, which means it
> builds fine with the waf build. I think using ldb as a test for this
> in the build farm would be a good idea as the current ldb builds in
> the farm are not in any way useful.
> 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.
> Cheers, Tridge

Hi Tridge,
sorry for the late reply, but I was on vacation and just got back to
find this monstrous thread :-)

I am a bit concerned about the size and complexity of waf for things as
simple as talloc and tdb or tevent. Ldb is slightly more complex, but is
it complex enough to justify a dependency on python for building ?

As you know I depend on ldb for a project called sssd, and it is getting
some traction even on some embedded projects. I am a bit wary to make
things hard for people by adding a python dependency on build for these
cases, given the rest of the code doesn't need it.

What is the track record for waf with regard to builds on other
architectures like ARM ? What about cross-compiling ?


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list