[PATCHSET]: let configure(waf) fail if --with-ads was specified but ad support was not found
obnox at samba.org
Fri Nov 2 06:22:44 MDT 2012
On 2012-11-02 at 22:50 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 16:18 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > Hi,
> > the attached patchset improves the waf configure in that it
> > now fails if --with-ads was specified, but sufficient support not
> > found.
> A long time ago, we discussed making this the default, and making the
> build require --without-ads if you didn't have and couldn't get the
> required libraries.
> This will require both waf work, and work on the build farm (to ensure
> we don't just outright fail these hosts, by adding --without-ads) or
> something like --with-ads=auto matching what you just did. Having
> mastered this part of waf, would you like to take on that part?
The present patchset does the following:
- if --with-ads is specified, then configure will fail support is
- if --without-ads is present, then checks are omitted and ads
support is not compiled in
- if neither is present, then this behaves like the mentioned
I think this is the sensible behaviour.
Previously, "--with-ads" behaved like "--with-ads=auto", which
can lead to very surprising results.
A note on implementation: I thought about adding a verbatim "auto"
value, but Using the "None" value with the meaning of "auto" was
the simplest way to get this implemented.
Regarding the build farm, I't like to see which hosts fail.
But the only thing I can imagine is hosts configured with
"--with-ads" that silently failed to build ads support.
So I'll watch out for such cases and change build config
there, if possible.
Hosts that specified neither "--with-ads" nor "--without-ads"
won't experience new probelms from these patches, or am I missing
Thanks - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical