Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org>]

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
> not.
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.

Cheers,

Jelmer