[PATCHv2 1-14/14] Re: Disabling Python Modules

Ian Stakenvicius axs at gentoo.org
Mon Mar 6 15:10:08 UTC 2017


On 06/03/17 04:47 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 09:49 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 23/02/17 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> On 21/02/17 05:13 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2017-02-21 at 00:01 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So since python isn't actually required, something along the
>>>>> lines of
>>>>> this should also suffice? (note, haven't tested yet)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/ctdb/wscript b/ctdb/wscript
>>>>> index 13384c8..5aac7eb 100644
>>>>> --- a/ctdb/wscript
>>>>> +++ b/ctdb/wscript
>>>>> @@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ def configure(conf):
>>>>>      if conf.env.standalone_ctdb:
>>>>>          conf.SAMBA_CHECK_PERL(mandatory=True)
>>>>>
>>>>> -        conf.SAMBA_CHECK_PYTHON(mandatory=True,
>>>>> version=(2,5,0))
>>>>> -        conf.SAMBA_CHECK_PYTHON_HEADERS(mandatory=True)
>>>>> +        conf.SAMBA_CHECK_PYTHON(mandatory=False,
>>>>> version=(2,5,0))
>>>>> +        conf.SAMBA_CHECK_PYTHON_HEADERS(mandatory=False)
>>>>>
>>>>>      if conf.CHECK_FOR_THIRD_PARTY():
>>>>>          conf.RECURSE('third_party/popt')
>>>>
>>>> Can you have a practical play and ensure we not only build ctdb,
>>>> but it
>>>> doesn't have any of the bundled libs producing python bindings?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've updated the PR with this solution (and fixed a conflict
>>> against
>>> some recent talloc/wscript changes), and am testing ctdb standalone
>>> builds locally now. A 'find' run within the installation prefix
>>> location during the autobuild test finds no python bindings (or
>>> anything else python-related) at all, so I would count this fix as
>>> successful.
>>>
>>
>> Hey all -- Travis is green on this and as far as i've seen there
>> haven't been any additional issues reported; is there anything left
>> to
>> do in preparation for pushing?  Should I git-format-patch and attach
>> here again for final review or is the github PR sufficient?
> 
> A git-format-patch always gets more attention.  
> 
> If you could rebase on my py3 branch (or provide a set each way), that
> would help, because absent any more issues I want to merge that first,
> as it is the more complex.
> 
> I thank you for your incredible patience in this matter.
> 
> Andrew Bartlett
> 

No problem.

FYI, I'm getting a conflict in lib/talloc/wscript , where it looks
like your patchset dropped the checks for the system copy of talloc
when it's not being build standalone -- is it OK to drop this?  Gentoo
Linux in particular -always- builds samba against system talloc, I
expect other distros do the same..

Wouldn't tevent need a check that is similar to what was done in
lib/ldb/wscript?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20170306/530db83c/signature.sig>


More information about the samba-technical mailing list