[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code

On 02/07/2012 05:19 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
The waf-unpack tagged bug reports refer to the Debian wiki with
instructions how to ship the waf script in unpacked form [2].
This is, unfortunately, not sufficient.

I assume the FTP team at least considers this approach as acceptable and
quite of few of the affected packages have been "fixed" this way already.
The FTP team probably assumed that the rather hard to read Python code
in the "unpacked" waf was actually the source code.  However, it is

Samba ships a snapshot of the upstream "wafadmin" python package and the waf-light script. They can be found as 'wafadmin' and 'waf-light' in https://code.google.com/p/waf.waf15/.

As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between using waf-light and the 'waf' script (direct or unpacked).

This is the code that the upstream developers directly work on, and it is what is used as the basis for generating the stripped-code-in-a-tarball-in-python minimal "waf" script.



Reply to: