[PATCH] waf: Fix the build on openbsd

[Michael Adam]

On 2015-02-26 at 09:57 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:06:19PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:01:31PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > 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...) :-)
> > 
> > 2 weeks later, nothing happened. I take this as a "we leave
> > OpenBSD unsupported" decision by the samba waf gurus?

Well, what is two weeks. No reaction within two weeks
means *nothing* as far as I am concerned. Some of the
involved people may have been busy/travelling/ill...

And what is more, "the waf gurus" certainly involes you,
Volker, since you were one of the most active in this
discussions about how to fix it. :-)

> +1 - we *must* support OpenBSD.

We definitely should if possible, even OpenBSD is kind of a
funny platform to support for Samba with its lack of nsswitch
and acls and... (unless this has recently changed).  :-)

> Who in the Team is willing to take on official waf
> support ?
> 
> If it's no-one, we have a real problem and we need
> to start looking for a new build system.

This is all a matter of resources.
We have a build system that works well most of the time.
We have a few people that are getting more and more
into hacking it when there are problems.
So that being said the situation with waf is imho not as
bad as some like to see it.

Introducing a new build system is a major effort.
I don't know if anybody would currently have the
time to introduce it. And it might also need
maintainer resources.

The current problem is not that there were no
patches for the openbsd build problem, but that
there were several of them and people were not
agreeing on which was appropriate, and a general
discussion of how to treat wafadmin patches
was started. So it seems that we don't have
too little waf support.


Coming back to the original openbsd build issue:

I propose that we first apply Volker's patch
to wafadmin and also communicate it to upstream.
(There was mention of some upstram bug tracker
as the preferred location to report patches.
Maybe we have just not pushed the correct buttons
in the past. ;)

This would fix the problem for now.
If we decide later that we generally want to go
a different approach, then we can still revert
the patch and re-do it differently.

Opinions?

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/20150226/1c4f4047/attachment.pgp>