[PATCH] waf: Fix the build on openbsd

[Michael Adam]

On 2015-02-14 at 00:09 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:56:34PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On 2015-02-11 at 18:05 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> AFAICT we were the reason upstream changed this code to improve
> OpenBSD support. It seems only fair to also go through upstream
> when we find out that fix is not correct.

Agreed.

> > And one of the problems discussed in this thread is that
> > some people had problems getting the attention of upstream
> > at all.
> It would be great if those people could link some specific
> bugs where this was the case. :-)

Well, one case I know is that Ralph has found
serious issues in wafadmin a couple of weeks ago
and desparately tried to reach upstream for a longer
time but got zero response. Ralph will be able to
detail on that. I don't know whether there is a bug
report. I have to admit, I would even have to look up
where to look for bugs... I always talked to Thomas
directly...

> This particular issue was not forwarded upstream AFAICT?

Correct. It was only discovered a couple of days ago
(I believe).

> > > 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.
> So far we've managed to eventually get all patches upstream,

See above (Ralph's issue) - this went into Samba
as wafsamba fixes, but they fix wafadmin deficiencies.

> so it would be nice if we could continue that.

In principle, agreed.

> I think we usually manage to get a hold of him. Filing a bug
> and then pinging later seems like the best way to do so.

Yeah, we can re-try...

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/20150214/abe43d4c/attachment.pgp>