Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Kay Schenk]

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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Kay Schenk]

[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  wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Patricia Shanahan]

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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 25/09/2015 Pedro Giffuni wrote:

I think it may be desireable to upgrade coinmp in AOO410 and with that
we would solve the issues for people(/buildbots) doing complete builds.


I see you have just committed this to AOO410, but remember: we are not 
freely committing to AOO410 at the moment (even though it seems indeed 
desirable to upgrade CoinMP, so it was correct that you did so).


Can you please provide explanations of the different merges from
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1705549 ?

Especially I don't find any background for this one:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1647713
Make sure system LAPACK/BLAS are never used
(the rest seems OK).


OTOH, my instinct tells me we could just avoid risks and leave things
as they are right now.


Yes, that's also my instinct and my preference. We got a large number of 
fixes in during the last few days, and now let's take the time to check 
that things work, and be careful before committing to AOO410.



Andrea, is the FreeBSD buildbot going to be
re-targeting AOO410 too?


It depends on its configuration. I assume it follows trunk. What I will 
do (when ready) is to move the SNAPSHOT tag to track a recent AOO410 
commit. Buildbots that track SNAPSHOT will thus immediately switch to 
AOO410.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Don Lewis]

Using the FreeBSD ports framework, I am able to successfully build
AOO410 branch revision r1705179 on FreeBSD 9.3, 10.1, and 11.0-CURRENT,
on both i386 and amd64.  The only required patch is a tweak to the
optimization flags to avoid a bug in clang 3.6 on i386.  I use exactly
the same patch when building trunk.  Unfortunately this can't be easily
fixed in the source because $(CCNUMVER) isn't available in gbuild.

If I merge r1690992, r1701276, and r1701344, I can successfully do a
buildbot-style build on FreeBSD 10.1 if I install the coinmp package and
pass --with-system-coinmp to configure.  The set of merges to fix the
coinmp build on FreeBSD are not directly mergeable because trunk is
using CoinMP 1.7.6, but AOO410 is still using 1.6.0.  Even if I manually
fix the problem originally encountered in the trunk build, I run into
other build failures.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello;

On 09/25/15 12:35, Don Lewis wrote:

Using the FreeBSD ports framework, I am able to successfully build
AOO410 branch revision r1705179 on FreeBSD 9.3, 10.1, and 11.0-CURRENT,
on both i386 and amd64.  The only required patch is a tweak to the
optimization flags to avoid a bug in clang 3.6 on i386.  I use exactly
the same patch when building trunk.  Unfortunately this can't be easily
fixed in the source because $(CCNUMVER) isn't available in gbuild.

If I merge r1690992, r1701276, and r1701344, I can successfully do a
buildbot-style build on FreeBSD 10.1 if I install the coinmp package and
pass --with-system-coinmp to configure.  The set of merges to fix the
coinmp build on FreeBSD are not directly mergeable because trunk is
using CoinMP 1.7.6, but AOO410 is still using 1.6.0.  Even if I manually
fix the problem originally encountered in the trunk build, I run into
other build failures.



I think it may be desireable to upgrade coinmp in AOO410 and with that
we would solve the issues for people(/buildbots) doing complete builds.

OTOH, my instinct tells me we could just avoid risks and leave things
as they are right now. Andrea, is the FreeBSD buildbot going to be
re-targeting AOO410 too?

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/09/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting specific
patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and then tagging
that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect the release
stability.


There will be less oversight on trunk at this moment since I see it 
likely that we will also switch the buildbots to AOO410 in the next few 
days. So introduced regressions (on trunk, I mean) might not be spotted 
immediately, but this is not a major priority now; they will simply be 
fixed later.


Most of the patches to be ported to AOO410 are already committed to 
trunk or will be by this weekend; maybe it's better to take some extra 
care in the next few days because of this, but for the rest I have no 
objections.


Note that one of the proposed release blockers 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126312 will have to be left 
out of 4.1.2 since it would introduce build system extensions. We 
definitely don't want that in 4.1.2 as it is shaping now.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Hi

We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting specific
patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and then tagging
that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect the release
stability.

Damjan

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> Hi again Damjan;
>
> I was assuming that we are sort of preparing for a release and we don’t want
> ugly surprises with the build system. On second thoughts we do have a bunch
> of buildbots so we will detect any wrong-going within the build system.
>
> Well, no one is currently using the build branch so I would suggest giving it 
> a
> try. If you find it too much trouble then you could do the work on trunk. In 
> either
> case the idea is to preserve the Oracle changes by using “svn merge”.
>
> I think it’s a fair amount of work but so far you have proved being very 
> capable
> with such changes :).
>
> Thanks +1
>
> Pedro.
>
>> Il giorno 23/set/2015, alle ore 10:48, Pedro Giffuni  ha 
>> scritto:
>>
>> Hi Damjan and list;
>>
>> Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the 
>> gbuild branch.
>>
>> The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs 
>> updating. I realize the request may seem inconvenient but the gbuild branch 
>> contains the last OpenOffice.org code related to gbuild and was relicensed 
>> by Oracle for our use.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Pedro Giffuni]

Oh, I see ...

The branching is somewhat weird in OpenOffice.

Yes, then you can do the work in trunk. Try to use "svn merge" to bring
the changes from the gbuild branch.

Unfortunately I moved configure.in to configure.ac so those changes will
have to be done by hand, but it's probably not the only case.

Pedro.

On 09/24/15 02:08, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

Hi

We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting specific
patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and then tagging
that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect the release
stability.

Damjan

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

Hi again Damjan;

I was assuming that we are sort of preparing for a release and we don’t want
ugly surprises with the build system. On second thoughts we do have a bunch
of buildbots so we will detect any wrong-going within the build system.

Well, no one is currently using the build branch so I would suggest giving it a
try. If you find it too much trouble then you could do the work on trunk. In 
either
case the idea is to preserve the Oracle changes by using “svn merge”.

I think it’s a fair amount of work but so far you have proved being very capable
with such changes :).

Thanks +1

Pedro.


Il giorno 23/set/2015, alle ore 10:48, Pedro Giffuni  ha 
scritto:

Hi Damjan and list;

Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the 
gbuild branch.

The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs 
updating. I realize the request may seem inconvenient but the gbuild branch 
contains the last OpenOffice.org code related to gbuild and was relicensed by 
Oracle for our use.

Pedro.





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Andrea;

It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.

I don't really want to spend time merging changes to the 410 branch, but 
I will be merging the basic build fixes for FreeBSD/clang.


I am still determining exactly what should be merged but it will
only affect FreeBSD build (bridges and makefiles) and are made to 
diminish the maintenance costs for downstream FreeBSD (Hi Don!).


Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Giffuni wrote:

It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.


Yes, this is actually quite normal (well, let's say "usual"!): I mean, 
4.1.1 was also released from the AOO410 branch and missed some of the 
updates that had been done in trunk in the meantime.



I don't really want to spend time merging changes to the 410 branch, but
I will be merging the basic build fixes for FreeBSD/clang.


Commits to the AOO410 branch are required (a social enforcement, not a 
technical one) to be approved as release blockers.


I know you are allergic to Bugzilla, so I've opened and approved
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126553
and please include "#i126553#" in your commit logs to track what is 
included; and of course, please tell us when we can consider your merges 
to be complete.


Remember: we are already freezing AOO410, so your changes should go in 
quite soon; I plan to merge my pending changes by this weekend.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Giffuni wrote:

People shouldn't volunteer other people unless tey are also giving them
the means to contribute ... I think.


Status of that item (buildbots) is "Done". Don's name is there for 
recognition of the already done work.


Using the buildbots for the release (even not considering that we are 
not providing binaries for FreeBSD at the moment) will likely become a 
TODO for 4.2.0 rather than 4.1.2. For 4.1.2 it makes sense to reuse the 
same committers' hardware what we used for 4.1.1. So no further work on 
the buildbots (besides fixing some bugs reported by Kay and others) is 
needed for 4.1.2.



I will draw a list and be back.


The issue at https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126553 now has a 
proposed commits list by Don and I know you know what to do...


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Pedro Giffuni]

OK this is my list:

r1591501, r1602791, r1669457, r1669459, r1669465, r1694132

It only touches FreeBSD related build issues:

M  main
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/except.cxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/makefile.mk
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/share.hxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/uno2cpp.cxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_x86-64/cpp2uno.cxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_x86-64/except.cxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_x86-64/makefile.mk
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_x86-64/share.hxx
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_x86-64/uno2cpp.cxx
M   main/configure.in
M   main/graphite/makefile.mk
M   main/set_soenv.in
M   main/solenv/gbuild/platform/freebsd.mk
M   main/solenv/inc/tg_compv.mk
M   main/solenv/inc/unx.mk
M   main/solenv/inc/unxfbsd.mk
M   main/testtools/source/bridgetest/bridgetest.cxx
M   main/testtools/source/bridgetest/makefile.mk


I avoided playing with nss and jpeg and I don't really address the
buildbot issues as that is more work.

Pedro.

On 09/24/15 11:56, Don Lewis wrote:

On 24 Sep, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Hi Andrea;

It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.

I don't really want to spend time merging changes to the 410 branch, but
I will be merging the basic build fixes for FreeBSD/clang.

I am still determining exactly what should be merged but it will
only affect FreeBSD build (bridges and makefiles) and are made to
diminish the maintenance costs for downstream FreeBSD (Hi Don!).


I've been meaning to bring up this subject since my name is mentioned in
the Buildbots category here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2

I am able to build a version of the FreeBSD port fromt the AOO410
branch, but it requires a fairly extensive set of patches.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 09/24/15 11:56, Don Lewis wrote:

On 24 Sep, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Hi Andrea;

It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.

I don't really want to spend time merging changes to the 410 branch, but
I will be merging the basic build fixes for FreeBSD/clang.

I am still determining exactly what should be merged but it will
only affect FreeBSD build (bridges and makefiles) and are made to
diminish the maintenance costs for downstream FreeBSD (Hi Don!).


I've been meaning to bring up this subject since my name is mentioned in
the Buildbots category here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2



Hmm ... Don has been helping a lot but he is not (yet?) a committer.
People shouldn't volunteer other people unless tey are also giving them
the means to contribute ... I think.


I am able to build a version of the FreeBSD port fromt the AOO410
branch, but it requires a fairly extensive set of patches.



It is a bunch of patches indeed but since I committed them in a rather
organized way it should not be difficult to merge them.

I will draw a list and be back.

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Kay Schenk]

On 09/24/2015 04:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 24/09/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting
>> specific
>> patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and
>> then tagging
>> that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect the
>> release
>> stability.
> 
> There will be less oversight on trunk at this moment since I
> see it likely that we will also switch the buildbots to
> AOO410 in the next few days. So introduced regressions (on
> trunk, I mean) might not be spotted immediately, but this is
> not a major priority now; they will simply be fixed later.

@Andrea. We already have buildbots for the 410 branch as the
SNAPSHOT tag. But this tag needs to be updated to something
more current with our recent merges.

My related thread on "dev" --

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg24969.html

We don't need to change the "normal" buildbots happening
against trunk.

Ok, related to the topic at hand. No objections to Damjen
making build changes in trunk from me. We can see what is
happening with the commits. If some of us need to keep
building in the current environment for whatever reason, we
will need to be aware of the changes and just don't do any
updates that are not needed. The AOO410 branch is what we
are using for the 4.1.2 release, and this branch will not be
affected.


> 
> Most of the patches to be ported to AOO410 are already
> committed to trunk or will be by this weekend; maybe it's
> better to take some extra care in the next few days because
> of this, but for the rest I have no objections.

OK, good. What should we assume about who is responsible for
what merges? On a few you've basically messaged the original
committer.  But the rest?

> 
> Note that one of the proposed release blockers
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126312 will have
> to be left out of 4.1.2 since it would introduce build
> system extensions. We definitely don't want that in 4.1.2 as
> it is shaping now.
> 
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> 


-- 

MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
  --Lao Tzu



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Andrea Pescetti]

Kay Schenk wrote:

@Andrea. We already have buildbots for the 410 branch as the
SNAPSHOT tag. But this tag needs to be updated to something
more current with our recent merges.


Sure, but we are now (say, in the last 24 hours and in the next 24 
hours) merging a lot of pending items and I'd rather reset the SNAPSHOT 
after this is done.



What should we assume about who is responsible for
what merges? On a few you've basically messaged the original
committer.  But the rest?


Anyone who feels competent can do that. The only important things are:

1) using svn merge, as in
AOO410/main$ svn merge -c 1700078 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main .


2) Ensuring that the issue gets updated through commit log or a comment 
("#i126258# Fix build on systems using a recent version of GNU Patch.")


I will take care of merging missing blockers, but if someone else does 
it (for approved blockers) and respects 1) and 2) above, any committer 
can help.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merging some FreeBSD changes to AOO410 (was Re: AOO build system upgrades)

[Don Lewis]

On 24 Sep, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Andrea;
> 
> It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
> trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
> for over a year won't be included into the next release.
> 
> I don't really want to spend time merging changes to the 410 branch, but 
> I will be merging the basic build fixes for FreeBSD/clang.
> 
> I am still determining exactly what should be merged but it will
> only affect FreeBSD build (bridges and makefiles) and are made to 
> diminish the maintenance costs for downstream FreeBSD (Hi Don!).

I've been meaning to bring up this subject since my name is mentioned in
the Buildbots category here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2

I am able to build a version of the FreeBSD port fromt the AOO410
branch, but it requires a fairly extensive set of patches.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Andrea Pescetti]

Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

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.


Yes and we have branches for both of them, even though gbuild is 
currently stalled. Note that we have a third one too, see 
http://markmail.org/message/q4n3lv4tex6boljq (Markmail archive is 
discontinued due to technical problems on their side, but old 
discussions are OK).



Have we chosen a final build system yet?


We had some long discussions on this, the last of which can be seen above.


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.


No objections on my side. Of course the focus is now on wrapping up 
4.1.2, but everything that makes trunk better is good too!



Our current hybrid build.pl + dmake/gbuild system is complex, ugly,
slow, unreliable, and hard to maintain


We all pretty much agree on this. The reason it has existed so far is 
that it works and that streamlining it has little (or zero) user-visible 
benefit but requires significant effort.



and I believe it's also a barrier of entry for new developers


It could also be a way to recruit a few ones, if you want to follow the 
Capstone experience from last year (with a gbuild-targeted project this 
time). If you feel you could use help from a small student team, you can 
apply as a mentor (by tomorrow) at http://s.apache.org/um ; as Jan 
reported, these initiatives have mixed success, but it might be worth 
trying.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Kay Schenk]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  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.

IMO, the important thing is to use gbuild and not necessarily emphasize the
Visual Studio aspect.

And, THANK YOU for taking this on.


>
> 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

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Damjan and list;

Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the 
gbuild branch.

The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs 
updating. I realize the request may seem inconvenient but the gbuild branch 
contains the last OpenOffice.org code related to gbuild and was relicensed by 
Oracle for our use. 

Pedro.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Damjan Jovanovic]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  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 ;-).

>>
>> 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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Marcus]

Am 09/23/2015 11:23 AM, schrieb jan i:

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015, Damjan Jovanovic  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.

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
(https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis). LO has
already migrated their build system to pure gbuild. Shouldn't we?




?? Not sure why I am copied on this mail not being committer I have no
saying in what to choose.

I do not see any specific questions for me, so please do not fill my inbox
(I read dev@ from time to time).


I think because of the Capstone 2013 project he has asked you. Anyway, 
even if not I don't see a reason for such a negative answer.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Marcus]

Am 09/23/2015 11:09 AM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:


[...]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.

[...]


another great idea, thnak for taking over. :-)

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Marcus]

Am 09/23/2015 05:26 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  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.

IMO, the important thing is to use gbuild and not necessarily emphasize the
Visual Studio aspect.

And, THANK YOU for taking this on.


yes, thanks for taking over this and trying to bring it to the end.

Marcus




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


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

AOO build system upgrades

[Damjan Jovanovic]

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.

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
(https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis). LO has
already migrated their build system to pure gbuild. Shouldn't we?

Regards
Damjan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Damjan Jovanovic]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> Hi Damjan and list;
>
> Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the 
> gbuild branch.
>
> The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs 
> updating. I realize the request may seem inconvenient but the gbuild branch 
> contains the last OpenOffice.org code related to gbuild and was relicensed by 
> Oracle for our use.
>
> Pedro.
>

Yes, the gbuild branch has 20 more modules ported to gbuild than trunk
does, but why work on that branch instead of porting those changes to
trunk? Are you worried I might break the build in trunk during the
migration? Not likely, I do clean rebuilds on FreeBSD, Linux and
Windows now before committing (if you sponsor me a Mac I would test it
there too). In fact I just caught a build problem on Windows with my
main/formula patch, which is why I haven't committed it yet.

I'll use the gbuild branch's makefiles as a starting point, but they
need to be thoroughly audited for files added/removed since they were
written, modules added deleted or renamed, and any other changes to
the build system (eg. cppunit replaced by Google Test), and updated
accordingly.

Damjan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi again Damjan;

I was assuming that we are sort of preparing for a release and we don’t want
ugly surprises with the build system. On second thoughts we do have a bunch
of buildbots so we will detect any wrong-going within the build system.

Well, no one is currently using the build branch so I would suggest giving it a
try. If you find it too much trouble then you could do the work on trunk. In 
either
case the idea is to preserve the Oracle changes by using “svn merge”.

I think it’s a fair amount of work but so far you have proved being very capable
with such changes :).

Thanks +1

Pedro.

> Il giorno 23/set/2015, alle ore 10:48, Pedro Giffuni  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Hi Damjan and list;
> 
> Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the 
> gbuild branch.
> 
> The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs 
> updating. I realize the request may seem inconvenient but the gbuild branch 
> contains the last OpenOffice.org code related to gbuild and was relicensed by 
> Oracle for our use. 
> 
> Pedro.
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO build system upgrades

[jan i]

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015, Damjan Jovanovic  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.
>
> 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
> (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis). LO has
> already migrated their build system to pure gbuild. Shouldn't we?



?? Not sure why I am copied on this mail not being committer I have no
saying in what to choose.

I do not see any specific questions for me, so please do not fill my inbox
(I read dev@ from time to time).

rgds
jan i


>
> Regards
> Damjan
>


-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.