A DRAFT statement on our build systems for Samba 4.0

[Michael Adam]

Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:44:02AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > I wanted to start a discussion about how we position and use the two
> > build systems, so that when we get to a Samba 4.0 release, our users are
> > clear on what build system provides what features, and why they should
> > use it.  
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > I fully expect that some of you will not agree with this DRAFT statement
> > in whole, but then your constructive feedback is important:  If we do
> > not have a common position, or we have technical issues that conflict
> > with this statement, then we need to sort that out.  I want us all to
> > understand the issues and (if technical) fix them, or (if philosophical)
> > see if we can come up with something that we all agree on, so that when
> > users of Samba 4.0 ask, they get a consistent answer. 
> > 
> > I would appreciate your thoughtful feedback and comments on this.
> 
> +1 on this - I think it's really well written and a very good summary
> of where we are.

I fully agree, also on the added paragraphs.

One potentially controversial point might be the advertisement of
the waf build also as the default for building and packaging
source3 only (for those who still want to do it).
I am fine with it, though.

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120519/01bd83fa/attachment.pgp>