You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2016/02/09 23:11:57 UTC
Re: AOO build system upgrades
[getting back to this old thread for a moment. See below]
On 09/23/2015 11:01 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
>>> to gbuild which migrated some modules
>>> (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort), and a
>>> more recent attempt, Capstone 2013, to get AOO to build in Visual
>>> Studio.
>>>
>>> Have we chosen a final build system yet?
>>>
>>> The reason I ask is that I became quite familiar with gbuild in the
>>> course of migrating our unit tests to Google Test, and have already
>>> successfully migrated one dmake module (formula) to gbuild, so if
>>> there are no objections, I am going commit those changes and carry on
>>> migrating other modules.
>>>
>>
>> Go for it! When you say "migration" do you mean a COMPLETE changeover or
>> would we have both the dmake approach and gbuild for a time? It's important
>> to use a build system that has more universal acceptance in my opinion.
>
> The ultimate goal is a complete changeover, but of course I plan to do
> it slowly and carefully, a module at a time, testing on all platforms
> before committing, and aim for the intermediate goal documented at the
> end of https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort/Module_Migration,
> which is to migrate the "late" modules building after svx first, so
> that a single GNU make process can then be used for them all and
> build.pl for them eliminated. Then, I presume, the rest of the modules
> can be gradually pulled into this "good" module group.
>
>> IMO, the important thing is to use gbuild and not necessarily emphasize the
>> Visual Studio aspect.
>
> +1.
>
>> And, THANK YOU for taking this on.
>
> Pleasure, and help is welcome ;-).
== HELP, TOO MANY MAKEFILES ==
I started looking at what's been done so far. And, due to the fact
that dmake also uses makefiles, what's the correct way to invoke GNU
make for a build? It looks like the "main" makefile for what's been
migrated so far is /main/Module_ooo.mk (?)
Is there any way to test our actual make file changes on a per
module basis?
>
>>>
>>> Our current hybrid build.pl + dmake/gbuild system is complex, ugly,
>>> slow, unreliable, and hard to maintain, and I believe it's also a
>>> barrier of entry for new developers
>>>
>>
>> I think many of us would agree with this. Although, the current build.pl
>> does provide some nicety in its own way.
>>
>>
>>> (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis). LO has
>>> already migrated their build system to pure gbuild. Shouldn't we?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Damjan
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
>> --Lao Tzu
>
> Damjan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
"Though no one can go back and make a brand new start,
anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
-- Carl Bard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO build system upgrades
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 02/09/2016 03:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 2:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> ...
>> == HELP, TOO MANY MAKEFILES ==
>>
>> I started looking at what's been done so far. And, due to the fact
>> that dmake also uses makefiles, what's the correct way to invoke GNU
>> make for a build? It looks like the "main" makefile for what's been
>> migrated so far is /main/Module_ooo.mk (?)
>>
>> Is there any way to test our actual make file changes on a per
>> module basis?
> ...
>
> From
> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Makefile-Arguments
>
> =================================================================
> 9.1 Arguments to Specify the Makefile
>
> The way to specify the name of the makefile is with the ‘-f’ or
> ‘--file’ option (‘--makefile’ also works). For example, ‘-f altmake’
> says to use the file altmake as the makefile.
>
> If you use the ‘-f’ flag several times and follow each ‘-f’ with an
> argument, all the specified files are used jointly as makefiles.
>
> If you do not use the ‘-f’ or ‘--file’ flag, the default is to try
> GNUmakefile, makefile, and Makefile, in that order, and use the
> first of these three which exists or can be made (see Writing
> Makefiles).
> ==================================================================
>
> It looks as though you can call your file "GNUmakefile" and it will
> be used even if there is also a "makefile" or "Makefile". You could
> alternatively pick a different naming convention and use "-f", but I
> recommend against it. Calling your file "GNUmakefile" will give
> subsequent developers a very useful clue.
>
> Patricia
Thanks for the response Patricia. I know we make use of recursive
makefiles, but I just couldn't see where the top most makefile was
for the gnu make (gbuild) scenario was for some reason.
The wiki page on build system analysis:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis
gives instructions for proceeding but omitted the important factor
on what the name of the topmost makefile was. In the end, ta! da!,
it is in fact named "GNUmakefile" in trunk/main. ( I guess I'm
blind!) So, all good for now. I will update the wiki page with what
I've found so far.
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
"Though no one can go back and make a brand new start,
anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
-- Carl Bard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO build system upgrades
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 2/9/2016 2:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
...
> == HELP, TOO MANY MAKEFILES ==
>
> I started looking at what's been done so far. And, due to the fact
> that dmake also uses makefiles, what's the correct way to invoke GNU
> make for a build? It looks like the "main" makefile for what's been
> migrated so far is /main/Module_ooo.mk (?)
>
> Is there any way to test our actual make file changes on a per
> module basis?
...
From http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Makefile-Arguments
=================================================================
9.1 Arguments to Specify the Makefile
The way to specify the name of the makefile is with the ‘-f’ or ‘--file’
option (‘--makefile’ also works). For example, ‘-f altmake’ says to use
the file altmake as the makefile.
If you use the ‘-f’ flag several times and follow each ‘-f’ with an
argument, all the specified files are used jointly as makefiles.
If you do not use the ‘-f’ or ‘--file’ flag, the default is to try
GNUmakefile, makefile, and Makefile, in that order, and use the first of
these three which exists or can be made (see Writing Makefiles).
==================================================================
It looks as though you can call your file "GNUmakefile" and it will be
used even if there is also a "makefile" or "Makefile". You could
alternatively pick a different naming convention and use "-f", but I
recommend against it. Calling your file "GNUmakefile" will give
subsequent developers a very useful clue.
Patricia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org