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

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 08:04 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2015-07-06 at 12:42 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On 2015-07-04 at 12:17 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > On 2015-06-26 at 23:30 +0200, Thomas Nagy wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 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,
> 
> After checking with Thomas, I would do slight amendmends
> for pushing, ... but:
> 
> > we need a second voice from the team.
> 
> Anybody?

I got very confused trying to work out exactly what the patches were. 

Can you re-attach exactly what you would like me to provide a second
review on?

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team         https://samba.org
Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT   
https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20150901/0bc1d16b/signature.sig>