[PATCH] waf: Fix the build on openbsd

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:42:17PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> 
> I agree with Ralph:  It is by no means necessary but I think this
> is quite nice an idea.  I also sort of understand Volker's concern
> of this being overkill, but I think the advantages outweigh the
> disadvantages easily. Volker, remember that whenever we touched
> wafadmin in the past, we started a discussion that we should not
> do it. Whence the initial approach of changing wafsamba.
> Of course it is, as you say, always possible to "just use git" to
> compare our wafadmin and upstream, but at least currently this is
> not super easy. At least Ralph and I have spent a significant time
> comparing wafadmin from samba and upstream, with different versions.
> Maybe you can do it just more easily or you don't mind doing silly
> work over and over again instead of abstracting it away, but I
> doubt that. ;-)
> 
> Also one thought regarding changing of wafsamba, which you
> complained so bitterly about (I don't want to go in to half a
> dozen of subthreads and reply to individual mails at this point):
> I think that while you are right that code duplication is bad,
> and is in general bad engineering, in cases like this it may
> have advantages, in that it may even help keeping our setup
> working across updates of waf itself without needing to deal
> with patches not applying. Of course on the other hand
> it may also conceal problems in an upgrade. But then, we are
> not doing these updates especially frequently...

Copy-and-pasting to override existing functions in
waf is *HORRIBLE* engineering :-).

As it looks like we have to do it, IMHO the least we can
do is keep this separate and identifiable.

> Coming back to the original problem that started this whole
> thread, it is of course unfortunate that the patch that was
> supposed to fix openbsd build problems lets your openbsd
> build fail. We found the patch in upstream, it looked
> reasonable, and we added it. It is our fault that we did
> not test it on OpenBSD (I think we didn't). But we would
> not have expected it to *break* OpenBSD... :-/

OK. But as Volker says we're now broken on OpenBSD.

What is the quickest, cleanest patch we can add to
fix that ?

I'll +1 and push.