running as part of waf dist

simo idra at
Tue Apr 13 05:56:38 MDT 2010

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 14:32 +1000, tridge at wrote:
> Hi Simo,
> Thanks for your TODO updates for the waf page!
> Regarding the last one
> where you ask for to be run as part of 'waf dist', that
> is indeed the intention if/when we get to stage 3 of the waf adoption
> where waf is the standard build system.
> For now I haven't done that as I didn't want to presume that the waf
> build was going to replace the autoconf build. I proposed a staged
> adoption of any new build system where there would be an opportunity
> for team and community feedback between each stage:
> (I'm not sure if you saw this, as you were away)

Yes I saw it, but didn't realize you proposed waf dist as a standard way
to build tarballs when not using waf, given it copies all the waf stuff
within the tarball.

> At the moment we are at stage 2 for s4 (and thus also for the
> dependent libs - talloc, tdb, tevent, ldb etc). During stage 2 the old
> build system is the official one, so I left the old in
> place, even if the tarball is created by waf.
> So far I have had very positive comments from a lot of people on the
> waf build in s4, so I will probably propose to move to stage 3
> sometime soon. 

Speed-wise looks very promising, I still need to get used to where
libraries and binaries are placed and how they are called, ./bin has
become a bit of a mess imo, with lots of directories and symlinks.

I was wondering why you haven't adopted a more common approach of
building into a ./build directory for the various .o/.a files and then
put the resulting binaries into ./bin and ./bin/lib without a deep
hierarchical set of directories under ./bin

> We still need to sort out if the standard build for the dependent libs
> should also be waf if we move to stage 3 for s4. I think we should,
> but you had some concerns about that. I'd be interested in knowing if
> you are happier with the idea of waf for ldb now you've had a chance
> to try it.

In general it is not a big deal for me, if I have to be selfish I can
see that both Fedora and RHEL do not really have issues with python as a
dependency, but my concerns are more for people building for embedded
systems or old Unices. If you have to use S4 you pretty much need python
anyway, but the sub-libraries really don't, it would just be a build

I think we need to carefully consider how much this dependency affects
usability for non-AD-Server code.

> If you like, we could create a ldb-waf build in the build farm first.

Yes, this would be a good idea in any case.

Even better if we could do this by building each library dependency
first so that we can test the full shared library approach.


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