Choosing a new build system for Samba

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 15:33 +0000, Dan Shearer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:04:56PM -0400, yaberger at ca.ibm.com wrote:
> > Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > < For the non-merged Samba 3 server I would like to maintain
> > < the ability to build it without python for as long as
> > < possible. Even if it means to maintain a separate
> > < configure.in/Makefile.in I think it is worth it. It does not
> > < happen on a weekly basis, but I frequently go to customers
> > < with weird platforms where it is extremely hard to even
> > < download the samba tarfile. Being forced to download and
> > < build python to compile Samba will make my job a lot more
> > < difficult in many situations.
> > 
> > I would *really* appreciate to be able to build samba without having to 
> > maintain a python package on my AIX systems.
> 
> I once used jython 2.2 to run some fairly substantial Python. If jython
> 2.5.1 is as good as claimed you may well be able to do an S4 build.
> Commercial Unix often has good Java support. Something tells me not a
> lot of people on this list will be motivated to try this out, but it
> might be one way to avoid python grief for you.
Jython, IronPython and PyPy (Python implemented in Python :-) are very
interested projects and while they support the full Python syntax and
base libraries, none of them support the CPython C API that a lot of
external libraries are built against.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100321/04e16101/attachment.pgp>