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

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 10:10 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> 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..

I don't drop it.  I just move it to after the python checks, and make
it check for both python versions. 

Andrew Bartlett

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