Of challenges in loadparm

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Mon Aug 1 21:34:50 MDT 2011

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 14:08 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > 
> > I guess I don't really see why the 'loop' here is an issue, given the
> > separate build stages involved.  As to the significance of leading
> > spaces, aside from being a convention that has worked quite well for
> > Samba for quite some time, I don't mind if it's changed to a CPP token
> > that is defined away. 
> Yeah, with a token I would feel more comfortable. It is more
> explicit. It is so easy for the human eye (especially mine) to
> overlook a little whitespace here and there.
> Apart from that it is a matter of personal taste probably,
> or paranoia, that I don't like to have some script parse
> the C file to generate headers that the C file (and other files)
> then include. I just feel more comfortable with having to
> explicitly maintain prototype headers. But again, this is
> a personal thing, I can't really give better arguments right now.
> > I would like to see this stage extended to restore automatic prototype
> > generation of loadparm functions, in the interim before a more grand
> > scheme can be achieved.  Doing so would make changes in this area much
> > less error prone (I'm pretty sure there are both missing and extra
> > prototypes at the moment). 
> Well, I think I will start out with creating dedicated header
> file(s) for the param/ modules.

Of course.  I just want to generate the lp_* bits to minimise work and
reduce errors. 

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org

More information about the samba-technical mailing list