[PATCH] waf: Fix the build on openbsd

[Michael Adam]

Ralph, Jeremy,

On 2015-02-10 at 21:48 +0100, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:28:08AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:42:17PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > 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.

Er, yes ... I was myself trying to draw attention back to
the original problem. :-)

> > What is the quickest, cleanest patch we can add to
> > fix that ?
> 
> reattaching the patch I proposed in an earlier mail.

Okaaaay, I think I misinterpreted the patch the first
time. I *thought* that you were proposing to somehow
track a number of patches to keep on top of our upstream
copy... But instead of being proper wafadmin fixes,
your proposed solution adds a place for us where to
collect the patches to wafsamba that should fix stuff
in wafadmin...

Hmmm, now that I understand it better, I am not entirely
sure that I like it that much. :-)

I think we first need to come to a conclusion whether we
want to override wafadmin function in wafsamba for the sake
of not changing wafadmin or whether we want to rather change
wafsamba instead...

This is definitely not a matter of "Show me a minimal fix
and I'll +1 and push..". If it were all for that, Jeremy
could either push Volker's initial patch to wafadmin or
revert the seemingly false fix openbsd issues patch which
is from upstream so also a patch to wafadmin. But this
proposed patch has triggered a (reoccurring) discussion
and we need to solve it or we will run into it again and
again (or somone might get really angry...) :-)

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20150210/8c892ac6/attachment.pgp>