[PATCH] waf: Fix the build on openbsd

[Michael Adam]

On 2015-02-11 at 18:05 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:08:15AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:18:56PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > 
> > > Well that suggestion was based on the assumption
> > > that we had decided on *not* changing wafadmin.
> > 
> > From my point of view this decision is wrong. I've given arguments for
> > my opinion abundantly in this thread, the main ones are traceability of
> > changes with version control and clarity of code. Also, if I was about to
> > import a new version of waf, I *wanted* git to complain about conflicts,
> > I would have no chance to scan all of wafsamba/wscript/wscript_build
> > for potential binary patches.
> 
> Aside from the discussion of how to carry local changes, why do we need to
> carry local changes in this situation at all?
> 
> We introduced this bug by sending a patch to upstream,

Well in fact, we introduced build breakage on openbsd
by simply applying a patch from upstream that was supposed
to fix build problems on openbsd... We did not submit
anything to upstream in this case.

> and so it seems reasonable to also help fix the regression
> caused by that patch there.

If we find regressions, it does in fact generally not seem
unreasonable to contribute back. But of course these upstream
patches were in the first place backported from a newer
upstream version, which complicates the situation slightly.

And one of the problems discussed in this thread is that
some people had problems getting the attention of upstream
at all.

> As far as I know we don't want (or at least strongly prefer not) to have
> Samba-specific changes in our copies of e.g. zlib or popt. Why is waf any
> different?

Very generally, it probably is not or should not be.
On the other hand, waf is nothing that is found in the
distributions like zlib or popt and where our copy is
needed only on some platforms. Also I think that we do
find a relatively high rate of problems we need to patch
in waf proper or patch around in wafsamba.

The preferred solution would be to have them fixed in upstream
of course if they are proper waf bugs, but it takes some time,
and I don't know if waf 1.5 gets any patches at all any more.

Thomas also had proposed a patch(set) some time ago to convert
samba to waf 1.8, which would be much better supported, and I
spent several hours trying it, but it did not work at all for me.
And the occurrences when we met on irc were so rare and short
that I gave up on it again. Since he does not seem to do mailing
lists, but only irc it is slightly difficult to keep track of
these things. So what to do?

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/20150211/19b2b4a3/attachment.pgp>