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

Thomas Nagy tnagy at waf.io
Sat Jun 27 02:54:12 MDT 2015


On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:30:15 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:

> 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:
> > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:28:05 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 18:36 +0200, Thomas Nagy wrote:
> > > > > > Please apply the patches attached to this message and
> > > > > > update your Waf 1.5 copy from the source repository
> > > > > > https://github.com/waf-project/waf.waf15
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we update waf again, we currently have to keep the
> > > > > local patch to python.py
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > Do you have any thoughts on a better way to do this?
> > > > > 
> > > > > We also can't import the whole waf tree, or carry it as a
> > > > > submodule, as that would bring in waf/doc/book which is
> > > > > non-free.  (Carrying that would cause all distributions,
> > > > > not just Debian, to then have to expunge it from our
> > > > > tarball, and may even cause issues with our obligations
> > > > > to our fiscal sponsor, which strictly requires that Samba
> > > > > distributes only free software).
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > > Either way, it would be most helpful if you could assist us with
> > > liberating the non-free docs.
> > 
> > I realize now that this would not only be useless - there has
> > never been any need to copy the BSD documentation to the Samba
> > tree - but also counter productive. The update script is very
> > coarse
> 
> Right, we could simply filter the docs from being
> copied. This does not seem to be a real issue to me.
> 
> > and has already lead to poorly reviewed modifications.
> 
> E.g. ?

See: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2015-June/108117.html

Thomas


More information about the samba-technical mailing list