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

[Michael Adam]

On 2015-07-04 at 12:17 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> 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! :-)

Survives autobuild for me.
So I if my understanding detailed above is correct,
then I approve of these patches. As said above, I
would like better commit messages, and we need a second
voice from the team.

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/20150706/a28ad733/attachment.pgp>