[PATCH] waf: Fix the build on openbsd

[Michael Adam]

Hi Thomas,

On 2015-02-27 at 15:44 +0100, Thomas Nagy wrote:
> On Thu Feb 26 06:06:19 MST 2015, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > 2 weeks later, nothing happened. I take this as a "we leave
> > OpenBSD unsupported" decision by the samba waf gurus?
> 
> Waf "upstream" here.

Thanks for chiming in! :-)

> The change that you suggested has been merged when I heard about it:
> https://code.google.com/p/waf/source/detail?r=adcaccc17fce32355bef595ccd1bd291e7800cc6&repo=waf15.
> Support for versioned shared libraries with a single number was never
> actually supported (new feature), while the change that broke the
> samba build was actually to add proper support for openbsd (on that
> system, only two numbers may be used, not three).
> 
> Jelmer told me on IRC that he would do the merge and have them
> reviewed by someone else. If you are in a hurry, I think you can use
> ./buildtools/update-waf.sh to sync wafadmin/Tools/ccroot.py.

I am inclined to cherry-pick the indidual patch because
there are more diffs still (see below).

I would appreaciate if you could keep authorship in the
git commit in patches like this. Porting from a samba-created
patch is trivial by just removing the buildtools/ level. :-)

> I have also just discovered a significant deviation from waf 1.5 in
> wafadmin/Tools/python.py - i believe it is the only one - it would
> have been nice to report such a thing.
>
> We usually address issues reported our issue tracker
> https://code.google.com/p/waf/issues/list in a timely manner
> except when feature requests affect negatively other projects
> (do not post issues to our mailing-list as it is for
> discussions only).

Yeah, we recently started to list the patches we diff from
upstream. Also apparently some people have tried to attract
you attention about some problems in wafsamba. Now we know
the correct place to report issues.

We should strive to have our changes upstreamed soon
to get in sync again.

> I have also added changes in 1.5 to facilitate the transition
> to waf 1.8, but that also seems to take time to include in
> Samba.

Well, I guess most of us would like to move to a newer version of
waf. When you proposed a patchset some time ago, I tried it and
could not get it to work at all at the time. Probably doing
something wrong on my end. Our discussion dried out then.
We should probably give it another try soon.

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/20150227/ffed50b1/attachment.pgp>