The Wrapper Project
asn at samba.org
Tue Dec 3 01:06:47 MST 2013
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 08:54:25 Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:49:13AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:44:21AM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > > Yes, if the there are enough unit tests. nss_wrapper is at 75%,
> > > uid_wrapper is at 69%, the rest is easy.
> > >
> > > The big step is to get socket_wrapper form 1% to at least 75%.
> > >
> > > Testings ensures that they are working as expected and we don't regress
> > > in
> > > future. The more people are using it, the better testing and testcases
> > > we get.
> > >
> > > And that's the goal. At least for me!
> > Isn't one huge aspect of this whole thing that Samba does
> > not use cmake but a home-grown build system based on the waf
> > toolkit? If we had cmake, wouldn't you be happier to develop
> > the wrappers in-tree?
> One thing that just struck me: To do development on a box that does not
> have the wrappers packaged, we would add a dependency on cmake. When we
> made the decision of autoconf vs waf vs cmake, we settled on waf, and
> not on waf *and* cmake. This really starts to get annoying: We hardly
> ever remove any dependency. We have perl, we have python, we have waf, we
> will get cmake. No surprise we have a problem attracting new developers:
> We raise the bar with every new language dependency we add.
I don't see a problem adding waf as a build system. So it can be build on the
build farms the same way as Samba. If we use git submodule it is very likely
that it will be integrated in the current buildsystem.
More information about the samba-technical