A DRAFT statement on our build systems for Samba 4.0
idra at samba.org
Thu May 17 10:02:18 MDT 2012
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 23:40 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 09:29 -0400, simo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 23:27 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 09:12 -0400, simo wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 17:43 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm trying to make it clear in our user's minds that we have moved
> > > > > past
> > > > > > having a 'file server' build and an 'AD build', and that for almost
> > > > > all
> > > > > > users, the top level build is the one they want.
> > > >
> > > > Do we have a toplevel waf switch to build only the file server (+nmbd
> > > > +optionally winbindd) and not the whole AD DC stuff ?
> > >
> > > Not at the moment.
> > >
> > > Skipping the new binaries shouldn't be hard, but skipping the libraries
> > > only then depend on will be a little trickier.
> > >
> > > If possible I would prefer to avoid having to mark every subsystem as to
> > > being a 'file server only' or 'full Samba 4.0', but if we cannot
> > > automate it, I guess this can be done.
> > >
> > > We should however not box ourselves in - it should be a tool to avoid
> > > installation of unused code only, not another dividing line between
> > > parts of the codebase.
> > My aim is to simply be able to tailor the build to the parts a user
> > really want to use, for example I wold like a --without-spoolss at some
> > point, and tat would stop building printing code.
> Would it be better to allow it to be a module, and then just not package
> the printing code?
> The issue with not building it is that 'make test' would need to be told
> about each thing being omitted, so as to skip some tests. We could make
> it conflict with --enable-sefltest, but then un-testable combinations
> are not great either.
> While everything is possible in software, the combinational complexity
> and the need to actively verify the result here worries me. (As
> background, I've already been contemplating how we can ensure that at
> least some tests are still run with your waf MIT krb5 build).
Yes this is a concern, we need to find out how to properly mark tests to
run with various combinations. We do not need to support all of them,
just the most prominent combinations.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical