In s3compat, to ifdef or not to ifdef, that's the issue
abartlet at samba.org
Thu May 27 17:02:08 MDT 2010
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 14:37 -0400, simo wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:36 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > It would certainly be much easier for me to just #ifdef out the
> > functions that I need to replace. In terms of build systems, it would
> > also be easier if I can reuse the samba3 waf rules with just -D and -I
> > manipulations. (ie, add #ifndef ENABLE_S3COMPAT to the files I've
> > split
> > out).
> > If that is acceptable to the rest of the team, I would like to use
> > that
> > approach for future changes. For example, it would be awkward to try
> > implement the attached 2 patches any other way.
> Apparently there isn't any strong opinion about this.
> Given you agree #ifdefs are generally easier I would suggest we go that
> route with all patches that have not yet been committed to master.
> But a suggestion is as far as I go.
OK. I'll change the patches I've not yet put into s3compat-for-review
to this, as you can see, the changes required there are far more dubious
as 'split file' operations (which is why I didn't dare to propose
I'll also propose some of those patches and see if the actual prospect
of #ifndefs provokes a more passionate response.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the samba-technical