You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> on 2016/03/15 19:46:21 UTC
Next release and gbuild
Hello;
I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
IMO, this is a great thing that will likely be unnoticed by our users
as it has no real effect on the binaries but it is significant in
improving the build experience.
Now, it appears the only thing holding a new release is a lack of
leadership within the community. Either someone steps in or we just have
a team of people do things. In any case I think a gbuild merge
forces to take some consideration.
Given the changes will be big, if we want a new release code soonish,
we should branch AOO42 before the merge, avoiding any potential risk.
If we are still taking longer, say 1-2 months, then we have ample time
to sort out any eventual issue and we shouldn't worry about it.
Of course we can merge gbuild and then fork from a past point anytime,
but now is a good time to decide about releases.
Thinking about gbuild and what follows ...
First of all congratulation to Damjan, this is very cool.
From my perspective, it's OK to depend on two or more build tools (we
do use ant, etc) as long as one of them is not DMake, so if we want
to use scons, I am fine with it but we will have to move Python to
gbuild. Things are looking fun ;).
Regards,
Pedro.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
>
> IMO, this is a great thing that will likely be unnoticed by our users
> as it has no real effect on the binaries but it is significant in
> improving the build experience.
>
> Now, it appears the only thing holding a new release is a lack of
> leadership within the community. Either someone steps in or we just have a
> team of people do things.
If you have some ideas on a "team" approach, we'd love to hear them.
> In any case I think a gbuild merge
> forces to take some consideration.
>
> Given the changes will be big, if we want a new release code soonish,
> we should branch AOO42 before the merge, avoiding any potential risk.
>
Well we would surely discuss a merge of this magnitude first. Damjan is
doing the gbuild stuff in a separate branch so nothing to worry about
currently. Our current /trunk is what we'll be using for 4.2 I would
think. In any case, time to go over fixed bugs since well, 4.1.1 that were
not included in 4.1.2 and probably need a target release, 4.2, assigned to
them. This has been on my "to do" list for a few weeks actually.
> If we are still taking longer, say 1-2 months, then we have ample time to
> sort out any eventual issue and we shouldn't worry about it.
>
> Of course we can merge gbuild and then fork from a past point anytime,
> but now is a good time to decide about releases.
>
> Thinking about gbuild and what follows ...
>
> First of all congratulation to Damjan, this is very cool.
>
> From my perspective, it's OK to depend on two or more build tools (we
> do use ant, etc) as long as one of them is not DMake, so if we want
> to use scons, I am fine with it but we will have to move Python to
> gbuild. Things are looking fun ;).
>
> Regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Time spent with cats is never wasted."
-- Sigmund Freud
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by Don Lewis <tr...@apache.org>.
On 17 Mar, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hello;
>>
>> I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
>>
>> IMO, this is a great thing that will likely be unnoticed by our users
>> as it has no real effect on the binaries but it is significant in improving
>> the build experience.
>>
>> Now, it appears the only thing holding a new release is a lack of
>> leadership within the community. Either someone steps in or we just have a
>> team of people do things. In any case I think a gbuild merge
>> forces to take some consideration.
>>
>> Given the changes will be big, if we want a new release code soonish,
>> we should branch AOO42 before the merge, avoiding any potential risk.
>> If we are still taking longer, say 1-2 months, then we have ample time to
>> sort out any eventual issue and we shouldn't worry about it.
>>
>> Of course we can merge gbuild and then fork from a past point anytime,
>> but now is a good time to decide about releases.
>
> All the gbuild branch patches have now been ported to the
> gbuild-integration branch. Please don't start testing yet: let me fix
> the sd inconsistencies, do a RAT scan and investigate any wrongly
> licensed files, compare bvt and fvt qa test results with trunk, and
> check for other obvious bugs before we start testing other platforms.
>
>> Thinking about gbuild and what follows ...
>>
>> First of all congratulation to Damjan, this is very cool.
>
> Thank you, and can the rest of you please make similar contributions ;-) ?
>
>> From my perspective, it's OK to depend on two or more build tools (we
>> do use ant, etc) as long as one of them is not DMake, so if we want
>> to use scons, I am fine with it but we will have to move Python to
>> gbuild. Things are looking fun ;).
>>
>
> A lot of my initial enthusiasm about SCons faded after I saw it had
> problems with MSVC on Cygwin, the authors themselves admitted SCons is
> slow for large projects, and the KDE project tried using it for about
> a year and then gave up and moved to something else (CMake?).
>
> I am not sure gbuild has the ability to run configure+make yet the way
> dmake does.
>
> In the short term I plan some more improvements to gbuild, like fixing
> --enable-symbols to do the same thing on dmake and gbuild modules.
Have you added $(CCNUMVER) on the gbuild side? I've been using that on
the dmake side to tweak optimization settings on individual files on
specific compiler version and architecture combinations. There is one
particular compiler bug that affects files on both of the gbuild and
dmake sides. In the FreeBSD port I have to detect the compiler version
and do a global optimization change because I can't do a fine-grained
tweak on the gbuild side.
It might make sense for configure to figure out CCNUMVER and just pass
it in as another environment variable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
>
> IMO, this is a great thing that will likely be unnoticed by our users
> as it has no real effect on the binaries but it is significant in improving
> the build experience.
>
> Now, it appears the only thing holding a new release is a lack of
> leadership within the community. Either someone steps in or we just have a
> team of people do things. In any case I think a gbuild merge
> forces to take some consideration.
>
> Given the changes will be big, if we want a new release code soonish,
> we should branch AOO42 before the merge, avoiding any potential risk.
> If we are still taking longer, say 1-2 months, then we have ample time to
> sort out any eventual issue and we shouldn't worry about it.
>
> Of course we can merge gbuild and then fork from a past point anytime,
> but now is a good time to decide about releases.
All the gbuild branch patches have now been ported to the
gbuild-integration branch. Please don't start testing yet: let me fix
the sd inconsistencies, do a RAT scan and investigate any wrongly
licensed files, compare bvt and fvt qa test results with trunk, and
check for other obvious bugs before we start testing other platforms.
> Thinking about gbuild and what follows ...
>
> First of all congratulation to Damjan, this is very cool.
Thank you, and can the rest of you please make similar contributions ;-) ?
> From my perspective, it's OK to depend on two or more build tools (we
> do use ant, etc) as long as one of them is not DMake, so if we want
> to use scons, I am fine with it but we will have to move Python to
> gbuild. Things are looking fun ;).
>
A lot of my initial enthusiasm about SCons faded after I saw it had
problems with MSVC on Cygwin, the authors themselves admitted SCons is
slow for large projects, and the KDE project tried using it for about
a year and then gave up and moved to something else (CMake?).
I am not sure gbuild has the ability to run configure+make yet the way
dmake does.
In the short term I plan some more improvements to gbuild, like fixing
--enable-symbols to do the same thing on dmake and gbuild modules.
> Regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
Regards
Damjan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by "donaldupre ." <do...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Either someone steps in or we just have a team of people do things.
>
Holacracy is not a good idea.
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 03/25/2016 06:12 AM, schrieb Don Lewis:
> On 17 Mar, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/15/16 13:46, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> Hello;
>>>
>>> I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
>>>
>>
>> It would be rather interesting to compare the buildworld timing.
>>
>> Is it faster to build with gbuild? Perhaps the buildbot may give us a
>> hint but we may not know exactly as I think gbuild adds some more tests
>> (not sure).
>>
>> The FreeBSD buildbot continues stuck when fetching tarballs, BTW :(.
>
> As are the linux32 and win7 buildbots. All three need to have
> LWP::Protocol::https installed.
Andrea has done a temporary fix. See [1] and [2] and the separate mail
[3]. This should work until Infra has installed the missing
functionality on every buildbot.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1736691
[2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1736692
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg26993.html
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by Don Lewis <tr...@apache.org>.
On 17 Mar, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> On 03/15/16 13:46, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Hello;
>>
>> I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
>>
>
> It would be rather interesting to compare the buildworld timing.
>
> Is it faster to build with gbuild? Perhaps the buildbot may give us a
> hint but we may not know exactly as I think gbuild adds some more tests
> (not sure).
>
> The FreeBSD buildbot continues stuck when fetching tarballs, BTW :(.
As are the linux32 and win7 buildbots. All three need to have
LWP::Protocol::https installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Next release and gbuild
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/15/16 13:46, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
>
It would be rather interesting to compare the buildworld timing.
Is it faster to build with gbuild? Perhaps the buildbot may give us a
hint but we may not know exactly as I think gbuild adds some more tests
(not sure).
The FreeBSD buildbot continues stuck when fetching tarballs, BTW :(.
Pedro.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org