You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> on 2007/02/13 11:59:14 UTC
All in one file C++ buid instructions.
I've attached a patch for cpp build instructions to:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-351
If some c++ person could take a quick look at it and make any
necessary amendments? Don't forget to add it to the packaging so it
gets included in source distributions and delete the other superceded
build instructions.
Rupert
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
I built it on RH3 and RH4, the updates I made to the build
instructions were mostly due to more instructions being required for
RH3. The current instructions have now been updated since I did that
build (my changes and yours) but effectively yes, I have used the
current instructions to build succesfully on RH3, from source
distribution and from a checkout. No snags, it works as described.
To do a build from a source checkout the only thing I did differently
to the instructions is that I did the 'autotools' installation
manually becuase the qpid-autotools-install script wouldn't work for
me (even with the http and ftp proxies set up right). I didn't
investigate why it didn't work it just seemed less hassle at the time
to install stuff manually. Anyone run this script recently and know it
to be working?
Also, I notice that the automake version in that script is 1.10 but
the version listed in the build instructions is 1.9.6. Might want to
bring these two in line with each other for the sake of consistency.
Rupert
On 2/20/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:14 +0000, Marnie McCormack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have a couple of prospective users on RH3, and that banks (and other
> > corporate monoliths) are *never* modern :-(
> >
> > Thought it worth mentioning in terms of build instructions/systems going
> > forward since we'll have to build on this env for a while .....
>
> A good point. Anyone with an RH3 system had a chance to try out the
> current build instructions? I'll be happy to update them if there are
> any snags.
>
> Cheers,
> Ala.n
>
>
>
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:14 +0000, Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a couple of prospective users on RH3, and that banks (and other
> corporate monoliths) are *never* modern :-(
>
> Thought it worth mentioning in terms of build instructions/systems going
> forward since we'll have to build on this env for a while .....
A good point. Anyone with an RH3 system had a chance to try out the
current build instructions? I'll be happy to update them if there are
any snags.
Cheers,
Ala.n
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
We have a couple of prospective users on RH3, and that banks (and other
corporate monoliths) are *never* modern :-(
Thought it worth mentioning in terms of build instructions/systems going
forward since we'll have to build on this env for a while .....
Hth,
Marnie
On 2/14/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:29 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > "Rupert Smith" <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Well I was already told that having an all-in-one would be better
>
> Oops, must read mail more often! I've comitted Ruperts README with some
> mods (see QPID-351) as I think it's better than what we had before. I
> moved the build-from-distro instructions up front to reduce confusion
> for folks using the distro.
>
> I think we'll get a better result by refining one README than by having
> two or more sort-of-overlapping READMEs.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:29 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Rupert Smith" <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Well I was already told that having an all-in-one would be better
Oops, must read mail more often! I've comitted Ruperts README with some
mods (see QPID-351) as I think it's better than what we had before. I
moved the build-from-distro instructions up front to reduce confusion
for folks using the distro.
I think we'll get a better result by refining one README than by having
two or more sort-of-overlapping READMEs.
Cheers,
Alan.
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Jim Meyering <ji...@meyering.net>.
"Rupert Smith" <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well I was already told that having an all-in-one would be better in
> the previous thread where I asked about it. Also I did a build from a
> source distribution and I had to upgrade a lot more tools (on RH3)
> than were mentioned in the building from source dist instruction. I
> tried to make this clear in the instructions by saying:
>
> Building from a source distribution:
>
> You do not require:
>
> * autoconf
> * automake
> * JDK 5.0
>
> I had to upgrade *everything* else on RH3 to do a build. In fact it
> was complicated enough, that I just did a complete build from a
> checkout anyway. I don't think the current README-dist instructions
> are anywhere near complete enough to follow. All in one file has the
Hi Rupert,
I've just tried my first qpidc-0.1 build-from-tarball on RH3 (well,
actually on AS3), and the first problem is that configure doesn't find the
required level of APR support. APR is a big thorn in qpidc's portability
side right now (ironic, since its "P" stands for "Portable").
Last I heard, APR is slated to be removed, so I've avoided spending time
to work around build problems related to its presence. If removing APR
is not something we can do soon, then I may revisit it.
Obviously, there are other sticks in the fire, like the 0_9->trunk merge,
so may be good to wait until that's complete.
I confess that making the build-from-tarball-on-RHEL-3 process easy
has not been a high priority, since the focus is on modern systems.
I rationalize that by saying people with older systems can follow the
README-dev instructions. But this is just in the interim. I expect
that before too long, even on RHEL-3, you'll be able to do the
classic "./configure && make ...", and everything will just work.
> advantage of files not getting out of sync with each other; I pointed
> out a dependency version conflict between the existing files.
>
> Up to you C++ guys to decide though. I'm just trying to contribute a
> set of build instructions that an occasional Linux user with rusty C++
> skills could follow. Maybe the fast-track for source distribution
> builds needs to be made a little clearer?
IMHO, there's no "maybe" about it :-)
The build-from-tarball instructions should be dead simple.
With a little effort, the code may soon be portable enough
so that the dead-simple instructions will suffice.
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
Can I suggest a little experiment? Grab the next person you can with
similar Linux/C++ skill level to me and see if they can follow the
instructions. Repeat. Feedback until the build instructions could be
followed by a chimp. Thats the sort of open source that I like to use.
Rupert
On 2/13/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well I was already told that having an all-in-one would be better in
> the previous thread where I asked about it. Also I did a build from a
> source distribution and I had to upgrade a lot more tools (on RH3)
> than were mentioned in the building from source dist instruction. I
> tried to make this clear in the instructions by saying:
>
> Building from a source distribution:
>
> You do not require:
>
> * autoconf
> * automake
> * JDK 5.0
>
> I had to upgrade *everything* else on RH3 to do a build. In fact it
> was complicated enough, that I just did a complete build from a
> checkout anyway. I don't think the current README-dist instructions
> are anywhere near complete enough to follow. All in one file has the
> advantage of files not getting out of sync with each other; I pointed
> out a dependency version conflict between the existing files.
>
> Up to you C++ guys to decide though. I'm just trying to contribute a
> set of build instructions that an occasional Linux user with rusty C++
> skills could follow. Maybe the fast-track for source distribution
> builds needs to be made a little clearer?
>
> Rupert
>
> On 2/13/07, Jim Meyering <ji...@meyering.net> wrote:
> > "Rupert Smith" <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I've attached a patch for cpp build instructions to:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-351
> > >
> > > If some c++ person could take a quick look at it and make any
> > > necessary amendments? Don't forget to add it to the packaging so it
> > > gets included in source distributions and delete the other superceded
> > > build instructions.
> >
> > Hi Rupert,
> >
> > Getting rid of README.rhel3 is a good idea, assuming someone
> > has confirmed that the regular "./configure && make && make check"
> > works just as well.
> >
> > The instructions were deliberately separated because the two scenarios
> > are so different:
> >
> > The build-from-distribution-tarball scenario requires only
> > minimal tools. It should work on nearly any system with
> > a POSIX shell and a few basic tools like sed, awk, and grep.
> >
> > The build-from-checkout scenario requires much more
> > infrastructure, and is complicated enough that even developers
> > can be frustrated trying to meet all of the dependencies.
> >
> > So, I think it is worthwhile to retain the README/README-dev separation,
> > to ease the build process for those who start from the tarball, without
> > confusing/frustrating them with the long dependency list that developers
> > must confront.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
Well I was already told that having an all-in-one would be better in
the previous thread where I asked about it. Also I did a build from a
source distribution and I had to upgrade a lot more tools (on RH3)
than were mentioned in the building from source dist instruction. I
tried to make this clear in the instructions by saying:
Building from a source distribution:
You do not require:
* autoconf
* automake
* JDK 5.0
I had to upgrade *everything* else on RH3 to do a build. In fact it
was complicated enough, that I just did a complete build from a
checkout anyway. I don't think the current README-dist instructions
are anywhere near complete enough to follow. All in one file has the
advantage of files not getting out of sync with each other; I pointed
out a dependency version conflict between the existing files.
Up to you C++ guys to decide though. I'm just trying to contribute a
set of build instructions that an occasional Linux user with rusty C++
skills could follow. Maybe the fast-track for source distribution
builds needs to be made a little clearer?
Rupert
On 2/13/07, Jim Meyering <ji...@meyering.net> wrote:
> "Rupert Smith" <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've attached a patch for cpp build instructions to:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-351
> >
> > If some c++ person could take a quick look at it and make any
> > necessary amendments? Don't forget to add it to the packaging so it
> > gets included in source distributions and delete the other superceded
> > build instructions.
>
> Hi Rupert,
>
> Getting rid of README.rhel3 is a good idea, assuming someone
> has confirmed that the regular "./configure && make && make check"
> works just as well.
>
> The instructions were deliberately separated because the two scenarios
> are so different:
>
> The build-from-distribution-tarball scenario requires only
> minimal tools. It should work on nearly any system with
> a POSIX shell and a few basic tools like sed, awk, and grep.
>
> The build-from-checkout scenario requires much more
> infrastructure, and is complicated enough that even developers
> can be frustrated trying to meet all of the dependencies.
>
> So, I think it is worthwhile to retain the README/README-dev separation,
> to ease the build process for those who start from the tarball, without
> confusing/frustrating them with the long dependency list that developers
> must confront.
>
> Jim
>
Re: All in one file C++ buid instructions.
Posted by Jim Meyering <ji...@meyering.net>.
"Rupert Smith" <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I've attached a patch for cpp build instructions to:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-351
>
> If some c++ person could take a quick look at it and make any
> necessary amendments? Don't forget to add it to the packaging so it
> gets included in source distributions and delete the other superceded
> build instructions.
Hi Rupert,
Getting rid of README.rhel3 is a good idea, assuming someone
has confirmed that the regular "./configure && make && make check"
works just as well.
The instructions were deliberately separated because the two scenarios
are so different:
The build-from-distribution-tarball scenario requires only
minimal tools. It should work on nearly any system with
a POSIX shell and a few basic tools like sed, awk, and grep.
The build-from-checkout scenario requires much more
infrastructure, and is complicated enough that even developers
can be frustrated trying to meet all of the dependencies.
So, I think it is worthwhile to retain the README/README-dev separation,
to ease the build process for those who start from the tarball, without
confusing/frustrating them with the long dependency list that developers
must confront.
Jim