You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> on 2008/12/10 08:40:33 UTC
M4-RC1
Please have at it:
http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/
--Rafael
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>.
2008/12/10 Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>:
> Please have at it:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/
I've just got round to looking at the 0-10 .NET client and the Visual
Studio project doesn't build. I had fixed the 0-8 client yesterday so
I'll fix this too under the same Jira (QPID-1521).
RG
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>.
Gordon Sim wrote:
> You shouldn't need the bootstrap (in fact it probably shouldn't be in
> the dist tarball). I wouldn't expect it to cause any failures though,
> what were the errors you saw?
I found this problem - I made a mistake, the C++ examples build works.
Sorry for the line noise!
Jonathan
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> But it is in this one:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-M4-RC1.tar.gz
>>
>> That is just a tar of the svn checkout, not a dist tarball, and the
>> bootstrap is actually required in that case. For c++ the rcommended
>> approach is to use the dist tarball.
>
> Would we ever encourage people to use the above .gz?
That .gz is actually an svn export of the precise revision for the
release. It's the canonical source from which all the other release
tarballs are built. I don't know that you would use it that frequently,
but you might use it if you wanted to rebuild the other release
artifacts with different options, or you might use it if for some reason
you don't have access to svn.
Even if we don't recommend its direct use, it's still important to have
it there for archival, signing, and licensing purposes.
--Rafael
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>.
Gordon Sim wrote:
>> But it is in this one:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-M4-RC1.tar.gz
>
> That is just a tar of the svn checkout, not a dist tarball, and the
> bootstrap is actually required in that case. For c++ the rcommended
> approach is to use the dist tarball.
Would we ever encourage people to use the above .gz?
Jonathan
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Gordon Sim wrote:
>> Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> You shouldn't need the bootstrap (in fact it probably shouldn't be in
>>> the dist tarball).
>>
>> It *isn't* in the tarball I downloaded, i.e.
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-cpp-M4-RC1.tar.gz
>>
>
> But it is in this one:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-M4-RC1.tar.gz
That is just a tar of the svn checkout, not a dist tarball, and the
bootstrap is actually required in that case. For c++ the rcommended
approach is to use the dist tarball.
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>.
Gordon Sim wrote:
> Gordon Sim wrote:
>> You shouldn't need the bootstrap (in fact it probably shouldn't be in
>> the dist tarball).
>
> It *isn't* in the tarball I downloaded, i.e.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-cpp-M4-RC1.tar.gz
>
But it is in this one:
http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-M4-RC1.tar.gz
Jonathan
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Gordon Sim wrote:
> You shouldn't need the bootstrap (in fact it probably shouldn't be in
> the dist tarball).
It *isn't* in the tarball I downloaded, i.e.
http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/qpid-cpp-M4-RC1.tar.gz
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Robie wrote:
>> 3. The makefiles don't work in cpp/directories. I did a ./bootstrap,
>> then ./configure, and got a bunch of compile errors, I think because
>> the directories have moved around.
>
> I don't think you're supposed to do ./bootstrap for the dist tarball.
> I'm not sure if doing it is expected to work or not though. If not, then
> possibly this is something that should be clarified in the README. Maybe
> one of the cpp experts could comment?
You shouldn't need the bootstrap (in fact it probably shouldn't be in
the dist tarball). I wouldn't expect it to cause any failures though,
what were the errors you saw?
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>.
Rafael Schloming wrote:
> I don't think you're supposed to do ./bootstrap for the dist tarball.
Can we delete it, then?
I don't know about you, when I see a file named ./boostrap, I reach for
it instinctively ....
Jonathan
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Please have at it:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/
>>>
>>
>> Couple of things:
>>
>> C++ src is still muckle. It probably makes sense for doc/ to be split
>> out to a seperate artifact. The docs are really nice though. ;)
>> C++ src unpacks to qpidc-0.3, 0.4 might be better.
>>
>> qpid-dotnet-M4 should probably be qpid-dotnet-0-8-M4 to be consistent
>> with qpid-dotnet-0-10. It unpacks into cwd rather than creating a
>> subdirectory which is ugly.
>>
>> Java looks good to me except for still having the duplicate libs in
>> management/ but that's not a huge deal, just annoying.
>>
>> You need to put your public key in KEYS.
>>
>
> A few more things:
>
> 1. Need a README.TXT, I'll write one.
Thanks
> 2. The root directory is inconsistent for the archives. When I did an
> untar ($ tar -xvf filename, for each archive), I got three different
> root directories:
>
> qpidc-0.3
> qpid-M4
> qpid-M4-RC1
>
> It's not at all clear to me what goes in each directory and why. Should
> there be one common root? This organization would make more sense to me:
>
>
> qpid-M4
> - bin - cpp
> - java - dotnet - python
> - ruby
> - specs
> - buildtools - gentools
> - etc - lib - management - review
This is definitely an issue, but its no worse than prior releases, and
too big an item to address for M4.
I think for M5 we should definitely improve the release structure and
make it consistent across the different sub-projects so that our overall
release looks a bit less like a random snapshot of distinct projects and
a bit more like a single cohesive release.
One of the issues here is that each sub-project uses a different version
number convention, and that is reflected in the release tarballs. The
cpp broker is version 0.x, the java code is version "Mx", and the python
and ruby release versions come from the overall release nomenclature (in
this case M4-RC1). This might make sense if we did independent releases,
but we don't, so it ends up being confusing.
> 3. The makefiles don't work in cpp/directories. I did a ./bootstrap,
> then ./configure, and got a bunch of compile errors, I think because the
> directories have moved around.
I don't think you're supposed to do ./bootstrap for the dist tarball.
I'm not sure if doing it is expected to work or not though. If not, then
possibly this is something that should be clarified in the README. Maybe
one of the cpp experts could comment?
--Rafael
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>.
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Please have at it:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/
>>
>
> Couple of things:
>
> C++ src is still muckle. It probably makes sense for doc/ to be split
> out to a seperate artifact. The docs are really nice though. ;)
> C++ src unpacks to qpidc-0.3, 0.4 might be better.
>
> qpid-dotnet-M4 should probably be qpid-dotnet-0-8-M4 to be consistent
> with qpid-dotnet-0-10. It unpacks into cwd rather than creating a
> subdirectory which is ugly.
>
> Java looks good to me except for still having the duplicate libs in
> management/ but that's not a huge deal, just annoying.
>
> You need to put your public key in KEYS.
>
A few more things:
1. Need a README.TXT, I'll write one.
2. The root directory is inconsistent for the archives. When I did an
untar ($ tar -xvf filename, for each archive), I got three different
root directories:
qpidc-0.3
qpid-M4
qpid-M4-RC1
It's not at all clear to me what goes in each directory and why. Should
there be one common root? This organization would make more sense to me:
qpid-M4
- bin
- cpp
- java
- dotnet
- python
- ruby
- specs
- buildtools
- gentools
- etc
- lib
- management
- review
3. The makefiles don't work in cpp/directories. I did a ./bootstrap,
then ./configure, and got a bunch of compile errors, I think because the
directories have moved around.
Jonathan
Re: M4-RC1
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Please have at it:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/
Couple of things:
C++ src is still muckle. It probably makes sense for doc/ to be split
out to a seperate artifact. The docs are really nice though. ;)
C++ src unpacks to qpidc-0.3, 0.4 might be better.
qpid-dotnet-M4 should probably be qpid-dotnet-0-8-M4 to be consistent
with qpid-dotnet-0-10. It unpacks into cwd rather than creating a
subdirectory which is ugly.
Java looks good to me except for still having the duplicate libs in
management/ but that's not a huge deal, just annoying.
You need to put your public key in KEYS.
- Aidan
--
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid
"Have we anything resembling a plan?" "Mm-hm. Ride till we find
them... and kill them all." - The 13th Warrior
RE: M4-RC1
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> Please have at it:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC1/
There's a compile error in RC1 C++ for Windows... I recorded it in
QPID-1525 and am testing a fix now.
-Steve