Difficulties bringing waf15 updates into Samba (was: Re:?[PATCH]?build scripts enhancements)

[Michael Adam]

Hi Thomas,

You asked me to look at some patches.
I think this is the correspondong mail..

On 2015-06-26 at 23:30 +0200, Thomas Nagy wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:51:56 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 07:52 +0200, Thomas Nagy wrote:
> > > 
> > > Are the new git submodules in Samba causing some confusion?
> > 
> > We are talking about, but not using submodules.  We have started to
> > mirror the git repos we would use, so we don't get caught out when
> > external hosting services change. 
> 
> My bad, I did not understand the submodule situation. Yet, this
> will not be a problem any longer;
>
> the files in attachment will apply directly to the Samba tree.
> The last new ones represent another important step towards the
> Waf 1.8 API usage.

Ok, I am a little confused.
While we are currently trying to reach a state where
do not have any patches on top of upstream waf, you
are proposing patches for us to take into our third_party
copy. And on the other hand you are not taking the one
patch into upstream 1.5 that we have on top and we were
asking you to import.

So, this all is part of the effort to move us toward
using waf 1.8.  Thinking about it, are the following true:

1. waf 1.5 is not being developed any more, hence
   you don't want to apply patches there at all.

2. Your general idea is to modify our wafadmin copy of waf 1.5
   in our tree (and modify our wafsamba code accordingly) so
   that it resembles waf 1.8 api and then our waf 1.5 (+patches)
   can be exchanged with waf 1.8 without having to make tedious
   adaptions to wafsamba at that time. Hence you want to decouple
   the chang from wafadmin 1.5 to waflib 1.8 from the changes
   to wafsamba.

3. Hence the changes you propose to waf 1.5 will never go upstream
   anyways and this would only be a short time of having more
   additional patches on top our copy of waf and when the switch
   to waf 1.8 has been made we should be on vanilla upstream again.

If these are true, then I am almost fine with the patches.
The commit messages need some improvement, and I will do some
more build tests over the week end (first local configure/build
runs looked fine.) and come back to you tomorrow or monday.
(Ping me if I don't! :-)

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/20150704/f7af21aa/attachment.pgp>