[PATCHSET]: let configure(waf) fail if --with-ads was specified but ad support was not found

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> 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
>   not found
> - 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
>   "auto" mode.
> 
> 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
> something here?

You are not missing anything.  Back in May or so we talked about having
Samba require krb5, ldap and ACL headers by default, so users would not
be surprised by the lack of these features in compiled binaries.  It
would make --with-ads the default, and require an explicit --without-ads
if you didn't want it.

(and the same for ACL support). 

It even got as far as a promise in BUILD_SYSTEMS.txt, but I never
managed to do the code.  I was trying to see if you might take it on.

Andrew Bartlett

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