Re: mcStandaloneBuilder b1 posted

2011-07-03 Thread Wilhelm Sanke
Many thanks to Richard and Ken for the release of the new Standalone 
Builder and the 4.1 IDE, not to forget the new Metacard Setup 2.01 by 
Jacqueline - and I assume that the preparations by Klaus were helpful 
for the developments of these tools..


The releases coincided with a palpable improvement of my health after 
four months of fighting with a nasty gastritis that caused a lot of 
enforced inactivity and reduced my energy and productivity to a large 
extent. But last week I have even resumed training with my tennis team, 
hopefully to prepare for the second half of the summer series in August 
(usually it is colder here than elsewhere).


Although the new releases are actually not the direct cause of my 
relatively improved health (as you would also guess from my first report 
below), I think that working with the shortly following versions of 
Standalone Bulder and the IDE will help me to recover completely in the 
near future with an enhanced motivation.


In his release mail Richard wrote:

In the meantime, feel free to post any bug reports you have either here 
to or me personally at b...@fourthworld.com


I wouldn't want to overload this list with bug reports, but it may be 
helpful to discuss them here where we can all keep apprised of what's 
working, what's not, and future directions. Your call.


With his beta 1-version Richard has given a differentiated answer to a 
situation that has become at least slightly more complex than before 
with the required new directory structure for a Metacard folder and the 
new license-binding procedures for a standalone two years ago. Before 
Rev version 4.0, all I needed to set up a Metacard folder was to drop a 
new Revolution engine into the MC IDE and possibly rename the engine, at 
least on Windows. To build a standalone, in the Metacard Standalone 
Builder I had to find a single file standalone (without extension) 
instead of the former MC.exe - and to prepare for such standalone 
building I had copied this single standalone file into my Metacard 
folder before. I just checked this again inside my Metacard folder 3.5 
gm1 with the MC IDE 3.0..


Here are some results and added comments of my first unsystematic 
exploration of the B1 version:


I succeeded to build two standalones from my stacks on Windows XP and in 
my Metacard folder 4.6.1, but after the succesful build they refuse to 
run and only throw an error message Standalone origin mismatch. After 
these two non-running builds I was somehow unable to build more 
standalones. There is for example no indication in the Windows pane 
which fields are required ones and which optional. One of the questions 
here: Should not field Original Filename in the Windows tab be 
automatically filled from the chosen Source Stack selection?


For LiveCode Folder/Bundle - in the upper region of the Standalone 
Builder - I had first chosen the Livecode runtime folder where the 
standalone files reside - following in essence the procedure I had 
used before in the 3.0 MC IDE, namely locating the necessary file 
standalone.  Instead we apparently need to choose the complete 
Livecode folder, but I cannot replicate this now as the Standalone 
Builder at the moment refuses to build any stacks, there is even no 
error message when I press button Build.


My proposal is to allow to point to the runtime folder only, which 
could be copied into the Metacard folder. This would mean that you need 
not have both the full Metacard and Livecode installations on the same 
computer (for example on a laptop). If the presence of a complete 
Livecode folder would be needed, why should we use an extra MC 
Standalone Builder?, provided of course the Livecode SB would function 
as expected without such peculiarities as it had often shown in the past 
like endless build times etc..


I see that cRevStandaloneSettings are attached to the source stack 
during the build procedure. Looking at them in one of the source stacks 
that were built, but refuse to run,

I find (without the full path before):
 Meta-Livecode 4.6.1 for _GEN_DestinationFolder
 Livecode 4.6.1 for _GEN_EngineFolder
but Livecode 4.6   for defaultBuildFolder

i.e. 4.6 instead of 4.6.1. Should this be the cause for the above 
quoted error message Standalone origin mismatch?


This is all I can report at the moment. I will continue to look more 
closely into the matter, but it seems to me we need a first update.


Best regards,

Wilhelm Sanke

___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


Re: mcStandaloneBuilder b1 posted

2011-07-03 Thread Ken Ray

 For LiveCode Folder/Bundle - in the upper region of the Standalone Builder 
 - I had first chosen the Livecode runtime folder where the standalone 
 files reside - following in essence the procedure I had used before in the 
 3.0 MC IDE, namely locating the necessary file standalone.  Instead we 
 apparently need to choose the complete Livecode folder, but I cannot 
 replicate this now as the Standalone Builder at the moment refuses to build 
 any stacks, there is even no error message when I press button Build.

Wilhelm, the LiveCode Folder/Bundle corresponds to the true LiveCode 
directory or (on Mac) application bundle. The standalone builder figures out 
where the runtimes are based on that. this matches the corresponding data in 
the new LiveCode tab of the Preferences window; in fact, if you set it up 
from Preferences, the new standalone builder will use it.

So all you need to do is pick the folder that was installed by the LiveCode 
installer into Program Files and the SB should do the rest (bugs 
notwithstanding).

Ken

___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


Re: mcStandaloneBuilder b1 posted

2011-07-03 Thread Ken Ray
Sorry Wilhelm, misread your post - ignore what I said in my previous post to
the list.

 My proposal is to allow to point to the runtime folder only, which
 could be copied into the Metacard folder. This would mean that you need
 not have both the full Metacard and Livecode installations on the same
 computer (for example on a laptop). If the presence of a complete
 Livecode folder would be needed, why should we use an extra MC
 Standalone Builder?, provided of course the Livecode SB would function
 as expected without such peculiarities as it had often shown in the past
 like endless build times etc..

That's the rub... even if the LC SB worked perfectly, it would still be a
pain to develop in the MC IDE and then have to switch out to LC in order to
build a standalone.

We're trying to accommodate those that use MC *and* LC as well as those
using MC only, so we should come up with a good way to do that; pointing to
only the Runtime folder might be a way to do it...

Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software, Inc.
Email: k...@sonsothunder.com
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/



___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard