On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22.05.2013 00:04, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> We are seeing a fair number of folks who want to work on a specific aspect >> or module of AOO. This is not unexpected, of course. >> >> This is the information for how to do partial builds from the new Build >> Guide: >> >> [1] >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Building_** >> Guide_AOO#Partial_Builds<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO#Partial_Builds> >> >> This is the information from the old Tools information: >> >> [2a] >> http://www.openoffice.org/**tools/build_env_tools.html<http://www.openoffice.org/tools/build_env_tools.html> >> [2b] >> http://www.openoffice.org/**tools/tools/build.html<http://www.openoffice.org/tools/tools/build.html> >> >> I actually used the "build --all:<prjname>" for what I was doing... >> >> So my questions. >> >> I don't know if new developers should necessarily know if a change is >> compatible or not. >> Would just ONE set of instructions in the Building Guide work for both >> cases? >> > > Well, yes. You can always do a clean build. But that is probably not > what you mean. no...it isn't. I guess I didn't make myself clear. In the current "new" Building Guide [1], there are different build instructions for "Compatible" vs "Incompatible" builds. There is also this statement: IncompatibleUse for code changes that modify exported C++ or IDL interfaces, that modify resources that are used by other modules, or when you are not sure. What I'm saying is that I would think new developers would always use instructions for "Incompatible" build because it is likely they are not sure. So, we can change the wording to somehow explain this. Ok, so we can deal with this aspect. What about the dmake vs make business? Or, should the "Compatible" build information be put someplace else -- like in "Advanced Topics" or something, toward the bottom? Maybe I will just make these kinds of changes and see what everyone thinks. :/ > But: the motivation to do a compatible build is to have turn around times > as small as possible. This can only be achieved by > > a) improving our build system or > > b) by taking shortcuts > > Option b) requires you to provide additional knowledge. That is usually > of the form: I changed file X.cxx in <module> but I know/believe/are fairly > certain that only library Y.dll has to be rebuild and nothing else. > Afterwards you have to copy Y.dll (or Y.so or Y.dylib ...) into your > office installation. > In other words, you have to know what you are doing. Otherwise use the > standard mechanism and be patient :-) > > I agree that this should be better documented. Both the technical steps > (building one directory/library, copying this library into an installed > office) AHA! Yes, we are definitely missing this piece! OK, I will make changes to the current Building Guide, and put in a section for this, which, hopefully, someone can augment with this very important information. > and the rules of thumb when to build just one library or a whole module or > everything. Agreed...thanks for your input. > > >> ...and >> >> Would the dmake instructions work for both dmake and make? (Something I >> think is probably another point of confusion for new developers.) >> > > To some degree we already have that. For example call 'build debug=t' in > the top-level directory of a dmake or gbuild module and the module is built > with debug information. > > -Andre > > > >> ...and >> >> Could we use a syntax that is more like what is found in [2b] for all >> cases? >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "You can't believe one thing and do another. What you believe and what you do are the same thing." -- Leonard Peltier
