You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> on 2011/06/15 12:10:53 UTC
Bootstrapping a build
Moin,
there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
repository:
acinclude.m4
aclocal.m4
config.guess
config.sub
configure
"configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move our
code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a lot of
code that uses another make tool, dmake.
dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original
developers have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary
releases of dmake and we don't need to do it in the future, but we need
to find an "official" place for the dmake source code, so that we can
build a binary version for us that can be used to build OOo.
Advice from our mentors is needed here.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
> On 15.06.2011 14:09, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Mathias Bauer<Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original
>>> developers have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases
>>> of
>>> dmake and we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an
>>> "official" place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary
>>> version for us that can be used to build OOo.
>>>
>>>
>> To clarify: Is dmake part of the source code grant, or is it still the
>> property of the original developers and just being hosted on Oracle's
>> system
>> for convenience?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
> It's the latter. The copyright is owned by "wticorp" ("Web Tools
> International" or so IIRC) and its website is given as
> http://dmake.wticorp.com/. Both obviously have vanished.
>
> IANAL, but dmake can't be part of the software grant as Oracle does not own
> the source code of it. It is not part of OOo itself (non of its deliverables
> ends up in an OOo package), but it always was built as part of the OOo build
> system bootstrap process.
>
Thanks, that's helpful.
>
> There are several options for how we can proceed, I just wanted to get some
> advice from the mentors which are doable and which aren't.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 15.06.2011 14:09, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original
>> developers have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of
>> dmake and we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an
>> "official" place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary
>> version for us that can be used to build OOo.
>>
>
> To clarify: Is dmake part of the source code grant, or is it still the
> property of the original developers and just being hosted on Oracle's system
> for convenience?
>
> Thanks
>
> S.
>
It's the latter. The copyright is owned by "wticorp" ("Web Tools
International" or so IIRC) and its website is given as
http://dmake.wticorp.com/. Both obviously have vanished.
IANAL, but dmake can't be part of the software grant as Oracle does not
own the source code of it. It is not part of OOo itself (non of its
deliverables ends up in an OOo package), but it always was built as part
of the OOo build system bootstrap process.
There are several options for how we can proceed, I just wanted to get
some advice from the mentors which are doable and which aren't.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
>
> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original
> developers have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of
> dmake and we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an
> "official" place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary
> version for us that can be used to build OOo.
>
To clarify: Is dmake part of the source code grant, or is it still the
property of the original developers and just being hosted on Oracle's system
for convenience?
Thanks
S.
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 19:47, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> There has been conversation about hosting this at apache-extras.org,
>> but ... what do the TDF/LO folks do? Are they just using dmake from
>> the OOo repository, and hoping that it won't go away?
>
> We have independent repositories so how would dmake go away?
I made an assumption that you use dmake from OOo, effectively as an
external tool. If you made a copy, then hey... Apache could just point
to yours (instead of making yet another copy over at apache-extras).
>> Have they moved away from dmake?
>
> Not much more than OOo has. Of course we are merging in any work on
> moving modules to gbuild if/as you do it, and doing some work on it by
> ourselves, too.
Gotcha. And it sounds like you guys have the same goal, which means we
could do "all the work" here at Apache to get rid of dmake usage, and
then you guys can lift that work into your repository.
>> If not, then where are the FreeBSD and Debian getting the code from?
>
> Well, at least Debian got it from OOo, as building OOo/LO is the only
> purpose of dmake in Debian, I think?
Seems like, yeah. So Debian could switch their upstream over to the LO
repository (assuming OOo goes down before they can remove their
dependency upon the tool), until it finally gets deprecated from all
packages.
>> Can't we just use it from there?
>
> For people who build on Debian or derivatives, sure. But for other
> distros, Windows, MacOSX you would need to provide dmake packages. Or
> make downloading a dmake tarball and building it part of the build
> mechanism, if that is acceptable from a "license purity" point of
> view.
It is fine to tell people "you need <this> tool to build an Apache
program". We use the entire GNU toolchain for a number of projects.
The concern arises when we force an end-user to use a license more
restriction than ours. Packagers may require non-permissive tools (eg.
GCC), but the result will be under the ALv2. The packager may *choose*
to build certain optional features (that are non-permissively
licensed) and deliver that to the end-user.
The key is being able to provide an end-user with a binary under a
permissive license. We can have features that depend upon (say) LGPL
libraries, but those dependencies have to be optional (eg. build
switch or certain types of run-time configuration and dynamic
loading).
So in this scenario, we tell people "you need the dmake tool", and
they have to go fetch and build it. We don't have to do anything in
OOo to do that fetch or build. That is simply part of the dmake
package.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Tor Lillqvist <tm...@iki.fi>.
> There has been conversation about hosting this at apache-extras.org,
> but ... what do the TDF/LO folks do? Are they just using dmake from
> the OOo repository, and hoping that it won't go away?
We have independent repositories so how would dmake go away?
> Have they moved away from dmake?
Not much more than OOo has. Of course we are merging in any work on
moving modules to gbuild if/as you do it, and doing some work on it by
ourselves, too.
> If not, then where are the FreeBSD and Debian getting the code from?
Well, at least Debian got it from OOo, as building OOo/LO is the only
purpose of dmake in Debian, I think?
> Can't we just use it from there?
For people who build on Debian or derivatives, sure. But for other
distros, Windows, MacOSX you would need to provide dmake packages. Or
make downloading a dmake tarball and building it part of the build
mechanism, if that is acceptable from a "license purity" point of
view.
--tml
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Tor Lillqvist <tm...@iki.fi>.
> There has been conversation about hosting this at apache-extras.org,
> but ... what do the TDF/LO folks do? Are they just using dmake from
> the OOo repository, and hoping that it won't go away?
We have independent repositories so how would dmake go away?
> Have they moved away from dmake?
Not much more than OOo has. Of course we are merging in any work on
moving modules to gbuild if/as you do it, and doing some work on it by
ourselves, too.
> If not, then where are the FreeBSD and Debian getting the code from?
Well, at least Debian got it from OOo, as building OOo/LO is the only
purpose of dmake in Debian, I think?
> Can't we just use it from there?
For people who build on Debian or derivatives, sure. But for other
distros, Windows, MacOSX you would need to provide dmake packages. Or
make downloading a dmake tarball and building it part of the build
mechanism, if that is acceptable from a "license purity" point of
view.
--tml
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:36, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
>> > "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that
>> AFAIK is owned by Oracle
>> > and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>
>> As mentioned later in this thread, some of that should be
>> just fine.
>> Some of the macros may need to be ripped out.
>>
>> Build artifacts like 'configure' should not be placed into
>> source control. Each developer should generate that after
>> pulling from source control.
>
> "configure" is rather uninteresting, but the source package
> must include it, unless oe expect builders to download a
> specific version of autoconf.
Source control would not have it, but the released source tarball:
yes. ie. the packaging process requires a specific version of
autoconf. That's the standard process that I've seen, rather than
checking configure into source control.
>...
>> If not, then where are the FreeBSD and Debian getting the
>> code from?
>
> FreeBSD has a dmake package available (we get the source
> tarball from Debian). For now it's not being used to build
> OOo but we can use it anytime, assuming dmake in OOo goes
> away.
Alrighty. So it seems the Apache OOo build instructions would say
"fetch dmake. <here> are options."
>> Can't we just use it from there?
>>
> Sure. Hopefully it won't be needed anymore after incubation
> though.
We can certainly use it past incubation. GPL'd build tools are fine.
The question will be whether we graduate before or after the
conversion to gmake. That will simply depend on what people work on
during incubation.
To be honest, I think the podling's "need to make a release" will be
the hardest graduation requirement. Once that happens, then we can
move to graduate (because I suspect the rest will be okay). That first
release will probably still have dmake. If not, then WOOT. Even better
:-)
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > Goal here being: can we avoid dealing with getting dmake
> > onto apache-extras, and just use whatever other people
> > are doing already?
>
> YUP, no need to mirror it again.
There are occasionally bugfixes applied to the dmake code in the OOo
repository (and they may or may not be included in other dmake versions,
esp. as they may or may not be relevant for a specific platform). But from
looking at hg log, it appears nothing relevant has changed in at least the
last year, so this is probably not a problem.
-Stephan
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:10,
> Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > Moin,
> >
> > there are two things about building OOo that need to
> be clarified.
> >
> > Currently we use "configure" to set the build
> environment. The way we are
> > doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of
> our code repository:
> >
> > acinclude.m4
> > aclocal.m4
> > config.guess
> > config.sub
> > configure
> >
> > "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that
> AFAIK is owned by Oracle
> > and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>
> As mentioned later in this thread, some of that should be
> just fine.
> Some of the macros may need to be ripped out.
>
> Build artifacts like 'configure' should not be placed into
> source control. Each developer should generate that after
> pulling from source control.
"configure" is rather uninteresting, but the source package
must include it, unless oe expect builders to download a
specific version of autoconf.
...
>
> There has been conversation about hosting this at
> apache-extras.org,
> but ... what do the TDF/LO folks do? Are they just using
> dmake from
> the OOo repository, and hoping that it won't go away? Have
> they moved away from dmake?
>
AFAICT it's still on their repository. I don't think it
matters to them to carry yet another GPL(v1) package.
> If not, then where are the FreeBSD and Debian getting the
> code from?
FreeBSD has a dmake package available (we get the source
tarball from Debian). For now it's not being used to build
OOo but we can use it anytime, assuming dmake in OOo goes
away.
> Can't we just use it from there?
>
Sure. Hopefully it won't be needed anymore after incubation
though.
> Goal here being: can we avoid dealing with getting dmake
> onto apache-extras, and just use whatever other people
> are doing already?
YUP, no need to mirror it again.
Pedro.
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:10, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Moin,
>
> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>
> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we are
> doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code repository:
>
> acinclude.m4
> aclocal.m4
> config.guess
> config.sub
> configure
>
> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by Oracle
> and also resides in OOo's code repository.
As mentioned later in this thread, some of that should be just fine.
Some of the macros may need to be ripped out.
Build artifacts like 'configure' should not be placed into source
control. Each developer should generate that after pulling from source
control. I think that config.guess and config.sub are also artifacts.
>...
> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original developers
> have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of dmake and
> we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an "official"
> place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary version for
> us that can be used to build OOo.
There has been conversation about hosting this at apache-extras.org,
but ... what do the TDF/LO folks do? Are they just using dmake from
the OOo repository, and hoping that it won't go away? Have they moved
away from dmake?
In short: can we rely on what TDF is doing for dmake?
If not, then where are the FreeBSD and Debian getting the code from?
Can't we just use it from there?
Goal here being: can we avoid dealing with getting dmake onto
apache-extras, and just use whatever other people are doing already?
Simplify our lives! :-)
Cheers,
-g
Re: dmake (was Re: Bootstrapping a build)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:35:54 +0200, Mathias Bauer
<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 15.06.2011 22:59, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 16:16, Pedro Giffuni<gi...@tutopia.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:45:08 -0700, Andy
>>> Brown<an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> From the Description of dmake 1:4.12-2 "make utility used to
>>>> build
>>>> OpenOffice.org" in Ubuntu's Package Manager. It would seem that
>>>> is
>>>> all that it is used for.
>>>
>>> Thanks for checking Andy!
>>>
>>> FreeBSD also has it and it's used to build 9 packages.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=depends_build&method=match&query=dmake&num=10&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search
>>>
>>> I will see if the FreeBSD port needs updating but I guess there's
>>> no
>>> need to start a repository for dmake unless we want to have some
>>> control
>>> over it (not likely).
>>
>> Would there be any benefit to dropping dmake in favor of more
>> readily-available build tools?
>
> That's already going on. We started a move to GNU Make, but not all
> our code modules have been converted to it. And as we already
> discussed, we don't want to convert the rest before we can get the
> first build of OOo@Apache.
>
Oh ... this is GREAT!!
Not that I didn't have faith in you, just wanted to make sure there
would be a plan B in place ... and save someone else from creating
another
dmake fork :).
Pedro.
Re: dmake (was Re: Bootstrapping a build)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 17:35, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 15.06.2011 22:59, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 16:16, Pedro Giffuni<gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:45:08 -0700, Andy Brown<an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> From the Description of dmake 1:4.12-2 "make utility used to build
>>>> OpenOffice.org" in Ubuntu's Package Manager. It would seem that is
>>>> all that it is used for.
>>>
>>> Thanks for checking Andy!
>>>
>>> FreeBSD also has it and it's used to build 9 packages.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=depends_build&method=match&query=dmake&num=10&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search
>>>
>>> I will see if the FreeBSD port needs updating but I guess there's no
>>> need to start a repository for dmake unless we want to have some control
>>> over it (not likely).
>>
>> Would there be any benefit to dropping dmake in favor of more
>> readily-available build tools?
>
> That's already going on. We startet a move to GNU Make, but not all our code
> modules have been converted to it. And as we already discussed, we don't
> want to convert the rest before we can get the first build of OOo@Apache.
Great!
And I'm behind on my threads. Hadn't see the "hold on for a bit" part
:-) ... Thanks.
Cheers,
-g
Re: dmake (was Re: Bootstrapping a build)
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 15.06.2011 22:59, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 16:16, Pedro Giffuni<gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:45:08 -0700, Andy Brown<an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> From the Description of dmake 1:4.12-2 "make utility used to build
>>> OpenOffice.org" in Ubuntu's Package Manager. It would seem that is
>>> all that it is used for.
>>
>> Thanks for checking Andy!
>>
>> FreeBSD also has it and it's used to build 9 packages.
>>
>> http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=depends_build&method=match&query=dmake&num=10&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search
>>
>> I will see if the FreeBSD port needs updating but I guess there's no
>> need to start a repository for dmake unless we want to have some control
>> over it (not likely).
>
> Would there be any benefit to dropping dmake in favor of more
> readily-available build tools?
That's already going on. We startet a move to GNU Make, but not all our
code modules have been converted to it. And as we already discussed, we
don't want to convert the rest before we can get the first build of
OOo@Apache.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: dmake (was Re: Bootstrapping a build)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 16:16, Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:45:08 -0700, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
> wrote:
>...
>> From the Description of dmake 1:4.12-2 "make utility used to build
>> OpenOffice.org" in Ubuntu's Package Manager. It would seem that is
>> all that it is used for.
>
> Thanks for checking Andy!
>
> FreeBSD also has it and it's used to build 9 packages.
>
> http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=depends_build&method=match&query=dmake&num=10&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search
>
> I will see if the FreeBSD port needs updating but I guess there's no
> need to start a repository for dmake unless we want to have some control
> over it (not likely).
Would there be any benefit to dropping dmake in favor of more
readily-available build tools?
Cheers,
-g
dmake (was Re: Bootstrapping a build)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:45:08 -0700, Andy Brown
<an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
>>
>> FWIW, Debian carries something called dmake-4.12, no idea if it's
>> related or not.
>>
>
> From the Description of dmake 1:4.12-2 "make utility used to build
> OpenOffice.org" in Ubuntu's Package Manager. It would seem that is
> all that it is used for.
>
Thanks for checking Andy!
FreeBSD also has it and it's used to build 9 packages.
http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=depends_build&method=match&query=dmake&num=10&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search
I will see if the FreeBSD port needs updating but I guess there's no
need to start a repository for dmake unless we want to have some
control
over it (not likely).
Pedro.
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:17:30 +0200, Martin Hollmichel
> <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2011 05:00 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> As far as I'm concerned that would be fine for dmake. I never liked to
>>> have it in the OOo code base and I know that others would welcome to
>>> have it separated too.
>> As there are no runtime dependencies to any OOo code I'd prefer to have
>> dmake elsewhere (SF, github, etc) to make clear that dmake can be used
>> by any other project, re-license the OOo specific and Oracle copyrighted
>> dmake (*.mk, etc) files to AL2.0 within the OOo-tree (solenv),
>>
>> Martin
>
> I think the Apache - Google code site seems appropriate. Also,
> preserving the history from the repository would be good.
>
> FWIW, Debian carries something called dmake-4.12, no idea if it's
> related or not.
>
> Pedro.
From the Description of dmake 1:4.12-2 "make utility used to build
OpenOffice.org" in Ubuntu's Package Manager. It would seem that is all
that it is used for.
Andy
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:17:30 +0200, Martin Hollmichel
<ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 05:00 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>
> [...]
>> As far as I'm concerned that would be fine for dmake. I never liked
>> to
>> have it in the OOo code base and I know that others would welcome to
>> have it separated too.
> As there are no runtime dependencies to any OOo code I'd prefer to
> have
> dmake elsewhere (SF, github, etc) to make clear that dmake can be
> used
> by any other project, re-license the OOo specific and Oracle
> copyrighted
> dmake (*.mk, etc) files to AL2.0 within the OOo-tree (solenv),
>
> Martin
I think the Apache - Google code site seems appropriate. Also,
preserving the history from the repository would be good.
FWIW, Debian carries something called dmake-4.12, no idea if it's
related or not.
Pedro.
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 06/15/2011 05:00 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
[...]
> As far as I'm concerned that would be fine for dmake. I never liked to
> have it in the OOo code base and I know that others would welcome to
> have it separated too.
As there are no runtime dependencies to any OOo code I'd prefer to have
dmake elsewhere (SF, github, etc) to make clear that dmake can be used
by any other project, re-license the OOo specific and Oracle copyrighted
dmake (*.mk, etc) files to AL2.0 within the OOo-tree (solenv),
Martin
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 15.06.2011 16:03, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original developers
>> have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of dmake and
>> we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an "official"
>> place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary version for
>> us that can be used to build OOo.
>>
>> Advice from our mentors is needed here.
>
> So far we do not host GPL code (incubator might be an exception).
>
> Do you know this:
> http://www.apache-extras.org
>
> It is google code for ASF related projects, which do not really fit
> into the ASF.
>
> I would suggest that we a create an project there especially for code
> like dmake.
> Every committer can have commit access to this project on request.
>
> I know this is done from other projects who care about necessary code,
> which do not belong to the original core.
>
> What this be an option for you?
As far as I'm concerned that would be fine for dmake. I never liked to
have it in the OOo code base and I know that others would welcome to
have it separated too.
That still leaves the problem with configure etc. as described in my
mail that started this thread.
According to
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
it looks as there could be some hope, right?
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 15/06/2011 16:07, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Well, they're actually hosted on Google Code, which is interesting:
> <http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/>
See http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
and
http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html
> This may definitely be useful for us, used with care.
There is no care needed. This is a very light touch facility for people
to host Apache related projects. Although it is nominally managed by the
Community Development project here at the ASF that "management" is
limited to enforcing the guidelines if/when we become aware of misuse.
Ross
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 07:04
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bootstrapping a build
>
>> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original developers
>> have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of dmake and
>> we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an "official"
>> place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary version for
>> us that can be used to build OOo.
>>
>> Advice from our mentors is needed here.
>
> So far we do not host GPL code (incubator might be an exception).
>
> Do you know this:
> http://www.apache-extras.org
>
> It is google code for ASF related projects, which do not really fit
> into the ASF.
>
> I would suggest that we a create an project there especially for code
> like dmake.
> Every committer can have commit access to this project on request.
>
> I know this is done from other projects who care about necessary code,
> which do not belong to the original core.
>
> What this be an option for you?
>
--
rgardler@apache.org
@rgardler
RE: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Well, they're actually hosted on Google Code, which is interesting:
<http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/>
Many seem to have no extras and many extras are also licensed with ALv2. Once I found a GPL one, I stopped looking further:
<http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/search?q=label%3aCamel>.
This may definitely be useful for us, used with care.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 07:04
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bootstrapping a build
> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original developers
> have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of dmake and
> we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an "official"
> place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary version for
> us that can be used to build OOo.
>
> Advice from our mentors is needed here.
So far we do not host GPL code (incubator might be an exception).
Do you know this:
http://www.apache-extras.org
It is google code for ASF related projects, which do not really fit
into the ASF.
I would suggest that we a create an project there especially for code
like dmake.
Every committer can have commit access to this project on request.
I know this is done from other projects who care about necessary code,
which do not belong to the original core.
What this be an option for you?
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
> dmake is GPLed and hosted at openoffice.org, because the original developers
> have abandoned it long time ago. We never made binary releases of dmake and
> we don't need to do it in the future, but we need to find an "official"
> place for the dmake source code, so that we can build a binary version for
> us that can be used to build OOo.
>
> Advice from our mentors is needed here.
So far we do not host GPL code (incubator might be an exception).
Do you know this:
http://www.apache-extras.org
It is google code for ASF related projects, which do not really fit
into the ASF.
I would suggest that we a create an project there especially for code
like dmake.
Every committer can have commit access to this project on request.
I know this is done from other projects who care about necessary code,
which do not belong to the original core.
What this be an option for you?
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
> Stephan and I should know enough about the new build system to continue the
> work on it together with interested developers.
>
Yes, but after the initial import/first successful build, please (as you
already pointed out previously).
Lets focus first on changing things that need to change on legal etc.
reasons, and improve afterwards.
-Stephan
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
Hi Jürgen,
that was my suggestion also (see my reply to Christian), I just wanted
to fight the impression that "gbuildifying" the code base would be a
major problem (that Heiner's mail could have created). It isn't. But we
all seem to agree that this is not what we should do first.
Regards,
Mathias
On 15.06.2011 14:22, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Mathias,
>
> i agree to Stephan that we should focus first on the legal issues in the
> code base but in general i think that i can help quite fast with gnu make
> and the new build system because of my experience with gnu make...
>
> Juergen
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
>
>> On 15.06.2011 12:46, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/15/2011 12:20 PM, Christian Lippka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>>>>
>>>>> Moin,
>>>>>
>>>>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
>>>>> are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
>>>>> repository:
>>>>>
>>>>> acinclude.m4
>>>>> aclocal.m4
>>>>> config.guess
>>>>> config.sub
>>>>> configure
>>>>>
>>>>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>>>>> Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>>>>
>>>>> The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
>>>>> our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
>>>>> lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
>>>> experience for all developers new to the code base.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Right, but don't underestimate the effort in doing the conversion
>>> especially without having Ause, Michael or Björn around. Won't be
>>> complete for many months to come.
>>>
>>
>> While it surely would be easier with Ause and Björn on our side, Stephan
>> and I can confirm that it's no rocket science. It took me a few days of
>> reading and understanding existing code to write my first build system
>> components for building zip and jar targets. I assume that others can do
>> something like that in a comparable time frame.
>>
>> Stephan and I should know enough about the new build system to continue the
>> work on it together with interested developers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mathias
>>
>
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Mathias,
i agree to Stephan that we should focus first on the legal issues in the
code base but in general i think that i can help quite fast with gnu make
and the new build system because of my experience with gnu make...
Juergen
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
> On 15.06.2011 12:46, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
>
>> On 06/15/2011 12:20 PM, Christian Lippka wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>>>
>>>> Moin,
>>>>
>>>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>>>
>>>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
>>>> are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
>>>> repository:
>>>>
>>>> acinclude.m4
>>>> aclocal.m4
>>>> config.guess
>>>> config.sub
>>>> configure
>>>>
>>>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>>>> Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>>>
>>>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>>>
>>>> The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
>>>> our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
>>>> lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.
>>>>
>>>> Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
>>> experience for all developers new to the code base.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, but don't underestimate the effort in doing the conversion
>> especially without having Ause, Michael or Björn around. Won't be
>> complete for many months to come.
>>
>
> While it surely would be easier with Ause and Björn on our side, Stephan
> and I can confirm that it's no rocket science. It took me a few days of
> reading and understanding existing code to write my first build system
> components for building zip and jar targets. I assume that others can do
> something like that in a comparable time frame.
>
> Stephan and I should know enough about the new build system to continue the
> work on it together with interested developers.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 15.06.2011 12:46, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 12:20 PM, Christian Lippka wrote:
>> Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>>> Moin,
>>>
>>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>>
>>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
>>> are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
>>> repository:
>>>
>>> acinclude.m4
>>> aclocal.m4
>>> config.guess
>>> config.sub
>>> configure
>>>
>>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>>> Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>>
>>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>>
>>> The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
>>> our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
>>> lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.
>>>
>> Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
>> experience for all developers new to the code base.
>>
>
> Right, but don't underestimate the effort in doing the conversion
> especially without having Ause, Michael or Björn around. Won't be
> complete for many months to come.
While it surely would be easier with Ause and Björn on our side, Stephan
and I can confirm that it's no rocket science. It took me a few days of
reading and understanding existing code to write my first build system
components for building zip and jar targets. I assume that others can do
something like that in a comparable time frame.
Stephan and I should know enough about the new build system to continue
the work on it together with interested developers.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:46:39 +0200, Jens-Heiner Rechtien
<jh...@web.de> wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 12:20 PM, Christian Lippka wrote:
...
>> Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
>> experience for all developers new to the code base.
>>
>
> Right, but don't underestimate the effort in doing the conversion
> especially without having Ause, Michael or Björn around. Won't be
> complete for many months to come.
>
I hope we can move to a clean build tool soon but if not I guess we
can also dump the dmake code into sourceforge or github so other
projects can use it (LO?).
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Jens-Heiner Rechtien <jh...@web.de>.
On 06/15/2011 12:20 PM, Christian Lippka wrote:
> Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>> Moin,
>>
>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>
>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
>> are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
>> repository:
>>
>> acinclude.m4
>> aclocal.m4
>> config.guess
>> config.sub
>> configure
>>
>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>> Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>
>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>
>> The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
>> our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
>> lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.
>>
> Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
> experience for all developers new to the code base.
>
Right, but don't underestimate the effort in doing the conversion
especially without having Ause, Michael or Björn around. Won't be
complete for many months to come.
Heiner
--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 15.06.2011 12:20, Christian Lippka wrote:
> Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>> Moin,
>>
>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>
>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
>> are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
>> repository:
>>
>> acinclude.m4
>> aclocal.m4
>> config.guess
>> config.sub
>> configure
>>
>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>> Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>
>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>
>> The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
>> our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
>> lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.
>>
> Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
> experience for all developers new to the code base.
You won't be surprised that I would love to see that happen. ;-)
OTOH I know that this will keep people busy for weeks and months before
we can even recognize what parts of the code base are still missing or
what else needs to be fixed.
So for practical reasons I would like to see a first build of the
renewed code base with as little changes as possible and as fast as
possible.
So we could also start with taking binary dmake from the OOo 3.3
repository, do our fist build and then throw dmake out. If all
developers agree...
BTW: that would be a fantastic opportunity for a cooperation with the
TDF developers. The build system shouldn't be something where LO and OOo
are in competition. Agreeing on hosting the complete build system at
apache.org, contributing everything to that repository and moving both
code bases to it in a common effort would help both projects, IMHO.
Regards,
Mathias
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>.
Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
> Moin,
>
> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>
> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
> are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
> repository:
>
> acinclude.m4
> aclocal.m4
> config.guess
> config.sub
> configure
>
> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
> Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>
> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>
> The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
> our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
> lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.
>
Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
experience for all developers new to the code base.
Christian.
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Stephan Bergmann
<st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
>
>> On 15.06.2011 18:07, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>>>
>>>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we are
>>>> doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code repository:
>>>>
>>>> acinclude.m4
>>>> aclocal.m4
>>>> config.guess
>>>> config.sub
>>>> configure
>>>>
>>>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>>>> Oracle
>>>> and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>>>
>>>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is most likely NOT a problem:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-23
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>>
>> I was hoping for that. Excellent. :-)
>>
>
> Is this indeed so?
>
> config.guess and config.sub are clearly marked as falling under the autoconf
> exception.
>
> However, aclocal.m4 contains:
>
> - AC_DEFUN(PKG_CHECK_MODULES ...), just marked as "free software" with
> "unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it" (so is probably OK);
>
> - AC_DEFUN(AM_PATH_PYTHON ...) and AC_DEFUN(AM_PYTHON_CHECK_VERSION ...),
> marked as GPL without mentioning the autoconf exception.
>
> - AC_DEFUN(AM_RUN_LOG ...), marked as GPL without mentioning the autoconf
> exception.
>
> and acinclude.m4 contains:
>
> - AC_DEFUN(AX_FUNC_WHICH_GETSPNAM_R ...), marked as LGPL without mentioning
> the autoconf exception.
>
> - AC_DEFUN(PKG_CHECK_MODULES_MACHACK ...), which was once added by me,
> carries no explicit license information, and was intended to be covered by
> OOo's normal license (so should be OK).
>
> All of these definitions are actually (directly or indirectly) used in
> configure.in. (I checked all this in DEV300_m106, but I think the relevant
> files have not changed for quite a while, anyway.)
Good catch. I stand corrected.
It looks like a small number of things to fix.
> -Stephan
- Sam Ruby
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
> On 15.06.2011 18:07, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>>
>>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we are
>>> doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code repository:
>>>
>>> acinclude.m4
>>> aclocal.m4
>>> config.guess
>>> config.sub
>>> configure
>>>
>>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
>>> Oracle
>>> and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>>
>>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>>>
>>
>> This is most likely NOT a problem:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-23
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>
> I was hoping for that. Excellent. :-)
>
Is this indeed so?
config.guess and config.sub are clearly marked as falling under the autoconf
exception.
However, aclocal.m4 contains:
- AC_DEFUN(PKG_CHECK_MODULES ...), just marked as "free software" with
"unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it" (so is probably OK);
- AC_DEFUN(AM_PATH_PYTHON ...) and AC_DEFUN(AM_PYTHON_CHECK_VERSION ...),
marked as GPL without mentioning the autoconf exception.
- AC_DEFUN(AM_RUN_LOG ...), marked as GPL without mentioning the autoconf
exception.
and acinclude.m4 contains:
- AC_DEFUN(AX_FUNC_WHICH_GETSPNAM_R ...), marked as LGPL without mentioning
the autoconf exception.
- AC_DEFUN(PKG_CHECK_MODULES_MACHACK ...), which was once added by me,
carries no explicit license information, and was intended to be covered by
OOo's normal license (so should be OK).
All of these definitions are actually (directly or indirectly) used in
configure.in. (I checked all this in DEV300_m106, but I think the relevant
files have not changed for quite a while, anyway.)
-Stephan
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 15.06.2011 18:07, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Moin,
>>
>> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>>
>> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we are
>> doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code repository:
>>
>> acinclude.m4
>> aclocal.m4
>> config.guess
>> config.sub
>> configure
>>
>> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by Oracle
>> and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>>
>> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
>
> This is most likely NOT a problem:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-23
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
I was hoping for that. Excellent. :-)
So though these files can't be part of the grant from Oracle, we should
be able to take them from the OOo repo under the (L)GPL, right?
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Bootstrapping a build
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Moin,
>
> there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.
>
> Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we are
> doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code repository:
>
> acinclude.m4
> aclocal.m4
> config.guess
> config.sub
> configure
>
> "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by Oracle
> and also resides in OOo's code repository.
>
> How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?
This is most likely NOT a problem:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-23
- Sam Ruby