WAF 2.x upgrade for 4.9
ab at samba.org
Fri Jul 6 06:13:41 UTC 2018
On pe, 06 heinä 2018, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 07:40 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy via samba-
> technical wrote:
> > On pe, 06 heinä 2018, Gary Lockyer via samba-technical wrote:
> > > Can I ask why the urgency to get the WAF upgrade into 4.9. It's going
> > > to b much safer if this gets landed after the 4.9 cut-off. My concern
> > > is that changing the build system this close to a release is going to
> > > cause all sorts of unnecessary pain. Whereas if we wait until after the
> > > 4.9 release we'll have 6 months to sort out any issues.
> > Python 2 will be dropped by Python upstream in 2020. Postponing a
> > release to 2019 means we couldn't sort out distribution-wide Python 3
> > migration for Samba and Samba AD targets until first half of 2019. This
> > puts Fedora Project (in my case) into a dangerous state.
> > Waf upgrade is a first step in cleaning up Python 2 use and replacing it
> > with Python 3-compatible code. Unfortunately, a reality is that it takes
> > more than just porting Samba to py3 to do that. We need to make sure
> > distribution as a whole deals well with that -- for example, while
> > FreeIPA is using Python 3 already in Fedora 28 (current release) with
> > select Samba Python modules and there we can be sure things work, the
> > same couldn't be said for Samba AD path. Right now I couldn't even build
> > Samba AD with Python 3 to test whether things would work at all.
> I don't see how the distribution-wide stuff can come before the Python3
> porting of the code is done. Given that, why is the build-system step
It is extremely hard to maintain large patchsets which touch every
aspect of Samba build off-tree.
> > Note I'm talking about use outside of git master as we need to have
> > supporting libraries packaged with upgraded waf. We have ~2 months until
> > 4.9 release, I think it is sufficient time to sort out waf issues in
> > prereleases given the analysis Andrew did to the resulting generated
> > config files.
> The concern is more that in the next 6 days, many developers will be
> trying to land patches into master for the 4.9 freeze.
> So we don't have 2 months, we have 6 busy days. I've seen how grumpy
> folks get when their autobuilds stop working, and I wouldn't advise
> being on the pointy end of that wrath.
I don't mind taking responsibility for bugs where it is due.
Are you saying I'm now blocked from even merging this to master?
> This isn't the absolute last step before a distribution package builds
> and operates with python3 is it?
Finding integration bugs is much harder when there is no base for
integration at all.
/ Alexander Bokovoy
More information about the samba-technical