status of the s4 waf build - go to stage 3?

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 13:37 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
>>> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 12:59 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>>>> Hi Tridge,
>>>>
>>>>> Most developers building s4 now seem to have switched to the waf
>>>>> build and everyone seems to be pretty happy with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this stage it may make sense to go to "stage 3" for use of waf in
>>>>> Samba4 (as per the original proposal). That would mean:
>>>> We still have a few missing features, we need to fix.
>>> Which features are those?  As far as I can tell, every Samba4 developer
>>> is already using the waf build, and the old one is rotting fast.  What
>>> is gained by holding up the change?  
>> The most important for me are:
>>
>> - missing yacc, lex rules (with the same strict check as in the autoconf
>>   build)
> 
> I don't know exactly what's involved, but this seems reasonable.  But as
> I'm the only one who ever updates yacc and lex files (via imports from
> Heimdal), is it urgent?

No, we need to keep the old system around until we have fixed that.

>> - waf build should (by default )give an error if a reconfigure.
>>   optional auto reconfigure isn't strictly needed.
>>   If we don't add that, developers could get to a stage (after a git
>>   pull) where the 'waf build' and 'make' will just display a very
>>   confusing error, which they don't now how to handle without a
>>   git clean -x -d -f or waf distclean (I guess waf clean would not
>>   help).
> 
> Given the complete disasters the current build can get into, are we not
> looking for perfection in the replacement?  

Sure, but with the old system people were used to do full rebuilds
and now everyone relies on waf to always do consistent builds.

Maybe a working at the end of waf configure could give a note,
that people need to rerun configure automaticaly
until we have a fix for this?

>>> I would like to make a new alpha with the waf build soon, so we need to
>>> change the default as soon as possible. 
>>>
>>>> Yes, we should maintain both for a while.
>>> Why?  (Particularly if we have decided to abandon the merged build in
>>> the short term). 
>> I think we need to at least maintain it until waf has fixed the missing
>> features.
> 
> I'm happy to leave it in, but I worry about the maintenance cost. 

I'm fine with having it just there so that we can get it to pass 'make'
again if needed.

metze


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100423/79ace82a/attachment.pgp>