A DRAFT statement on our build systems for Samba 4.0

[simo]

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.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>