Re: One official build system?

Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2016 um 21:37:03, schrieb Georg Baum > Georg Baum wrote: > > > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > >> So it is a built and removed source. Should it be ditributed? > > > > I don't think so. But I do not understand how to implement that. It seems >

Re: One official build system?

Georg Baum wrote: > Kornel Benko wrote: > >> So it is a built and removed source. Should it be ditributed? > > I don't think so. But I do not understand how to implement that. It seems > that automake evalutes all if-branches when adding file to the *_DIST > targets. Actually I found it out

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > I see, but this one is from automake, not from cmake (where one would > expect it). I don't have it local. The question mark is there, because I > didn't knew, where it came from). Searching now... A sorry, I was confused. This file is for the monolithic build, and we have

Re: One official build system?

Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2016 um 22:29:17, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016 um 22:37:58, schrieb Georg Baum > > > >> The icons and the regex files are indeed a serious problem. The icons > >> should be fixed now, this was

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016 um 22:37:58, schrieb Georg Baum > >> The icons and the regex files are indeed a serious problem. The icons >> should be fixed now, this was simply a wrong style of using variables. > > It does not look like that. Even after ./autogen.sh and

Re: One official build system?

Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016 um 22:37:58, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > The result is that cmake part misses > > Makefile.in > > automake misses > > lib/fonts/*.sfd (11 files) > > lib/images/ipa/*.svgz (30 files) > > lib/images/oxygen/*.svgz (88

Re: One official build system?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:03:15PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016 um 14:56:21, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:02:23AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016 um 19:09:04, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > >

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > The result is that cmake part misses > Makefile.in > automake misses > lib/fonts/*.sfd (11 files) > lib/images/ipa/*.svgz (30 files) > lib/images/oxygen/*.svgz (88 files) > src/mathed/InsetMathXYArrow.{cpp,h} >

Re: One official build system?

Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016 um 14:56:21, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:02:23AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016 um 19:09:04, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > > > Note also that for me make package_source produces a

Re: One official build system?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:02:23AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016 um 19:09:04, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > Note also that for me make package_source produces a tar.gz, not a > > tar.xz as you suggested above. > > It depends on how you configure, so

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > (Select only one of them) > But, yes, .tar.xz is not created :( I know nothing of cmake, but we really want .xz. Not only it gets better compression ratio but it's standard already: http://henrich-on-debian.blogspot.cz/2016/06/which-compression-do-debian-packages-use.html

Re: One official build system?

Am Montag, 13. Juni 2016 um 19:09:04, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > Note also that for me make package_source produces a tar.gz, not a > tar.xz as you suggested above. It depends on how you configure, so that 'make package' knows what to produce. 1.) -DCPACK_SOURCE_TGZ:BOOL=ON

Re: One official build system?

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 07:29:34PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > By the way, I saw your comment just above the definition of the lyxdist > > target, which you introduced in 2010 (d407a15c): > > > > > > #Wait some time for bumping automake 1.11, which can use

Re: One official build system?

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:48:28PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 15:36:37, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:40:59PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > I'm still not sure what the implications of

Re: One official build system?

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > By the way, I saw your comment just above the definition of the lyxdist > target, which you introduced in 2010 (d407a15c): > > > #Wait some time for bumping automake 1.11, which can use dist-xz > #directly without this code, which is to be removed. > #xz has low

Re: One official build system?

Am 07.06.2016 um 14:36 schrieb Kornel Benko : > > Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 13:57:30, schrieb Stephan Witt >> Am 07.06.2016 um 13:46 schrieb Stephan Witt : >>> >>> Am 07.06.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Kornel Benko : > > The

Re: One official build system?

Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 13:57:30, schrieb Stephan Witt > Am 07.06.2016 um 13:46 schrieb Stephan Witt : > > > > Am 07.06.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Kornel Benko : > >>> > >>> The complete list of the files the final LyX.app contains is attached

Re: One official build system?

Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 13:38:51, schrieb Stephan Witt > Am 07.06.2016 um 13:22 schrieb Kornel Benko : > > > > Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 12:39:12, schrieb Kornel Benko > >>> The complete list of the files the final LyX.app contains is

Re: One official build system?

Am 07.06.2016 um 13:46 schrieb Stephan Witt : > > Am 07.06.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Kornel Benko : >>> >>> The complete list of the files the final LyX.app contains is attached as >>> text file. >> >> Looks like there are many more files in the list. Probably not

Re: One official build system?

Am 07.06.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Kornel Benko : > > Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 08:31:53, schrieb Stephan Witt >> Am 06.06.2016 um 18:41 schrieb Kornel Benko : >>> > ... >>> Yes. Stephan could you send me the list of installed files if you install

Re: One official build system?

Am 07.06.2016 um 13:22 schrieb Kornel Benko : > > Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 12:39:12, schrieb Kornel Benko >>> The complete list of the files the final LyX.app contains is attached as >>> text file. > > Can I get also a suffixed version of the list? What is

Re: One official build system?

Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 12:39:12, schrieb Kornel Benko > > The complete list of the files the final LyX.app contains is attached as > > text file. Can I get also a suffixed version of the list? Kornel signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message

Re: One official build system?

Am Dienstag, 7. Juni 2016 um 08:31:53, schrieb Stephan Witt > Am 06.06.2016 um 18:41 schrieb Kornel Benko : > > ... > > Yes. Stephan could you send me the list of installed files if you install > > with automake? > > I can try to use the same directories. > >

Re: One official build system?

Am Montag, 6. Juni 2016 um 20:53:47, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Version suffix for bin and locales is already used as expected. > > Very good. > > > I think, there is nothing to do for windows yet, because it uses already > > cmake. > > OK

Re: One official build system?

Am Montag, 6. Juni 2016 um 21:03:05, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Don't know if this helps, but I never use relative path with cmake. > > #mkdir some_build_path > > # cd some_build_path > > # cmake abs_path_to_lyx_sources ... > > I use relative

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 20:34:38, schrieb Liviu Andronic > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Unfortunately cmake is not able yet to produce more than one debian > package. Recently started discussions to

Re: One official build system?

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: >> >> OK, starting on the list first. I can only comment on the cmake part. >> >> [A] detection of external dependencies >> cmake does full detection IMHO >> [B] create .rpm >> cmake creates rpm, deb, >>

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > Don't know if this helps, but I never use relative path with cmake. > #mkdir some_build_path > # cd some_build_path > # cmake abs_path_to_lyx_sources ... I use relative paths, and it works fine. Georg

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 19:03:51, schrieb Kornel Benko > >> Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 18:43:03, schrieb Georg Baum >> >> > Kornel Benko wrote: >> > > ... >> > The remaining directories from the second list would be

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > Version suffix for bin and locales is already used as expected. Very good. > I think, there is nothing to do for windows yet, because it uses already > cmake. OK (I was not sure whether the changes for linux would imply changews for windows as well). Georg

Re: One official build system?

Am Montag, 6. Juni 2016 um 19:26:24, schrieb Liviu Andronic > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 20:34:38, schrieb Liviu Andronic > > > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Kornel Benko

Re: One official build system?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 20:34:38, schrieb Liviu Andronic > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: >> > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 19:03:51, schrieb Kornel Benko

Re: One official build system?

Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 20:34:38, schrieb Liviu Andronic > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 19:03:51, schrieb Kornel Benko > >> Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 18:43:03, schrieb Georg

Re: One official build system?

Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 12:27:52, schrieb Stephan Witt > Am 05.06.2016 um 11:13 schrieb Georg Baum : > > > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote: > >>> > Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15

Re: One official build system?

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 12:13:51, schrieb Georg Baum > > > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > > > Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 09:55:10, schrieb Georg Baum > > >> > > >> However, this is not so important.

Re: One official build system?

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 19:03:51, schrieb Kornel Benko >> Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 18:43:03, schrieb Georg Baum >> >> > Kornel Benko wrote: >> > > ... >> > The remaining

Re: One official build system?

Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 19:03:51, schrieb Kornel Benko > Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 18:43:03, schrieb Georg Baum > > > Kornel Benko wrote: > > ... > > The remaining directories from the second list would be located as follows: > > > > bin:

Re: One official build system?

Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 18:43:03, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > ATM cmake installs almost everything under the installation directory. > > Exceptions are (defaults for versioned) > > manuals /usr/local/man, (e.g.

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > ATM cmake installs almost everything under the installation directory. > Exceptions are (defaults for versioned) > manuals /usr/local/man, (e.g. /usr/local/man/man1/man1/lyxclient2.3.1) > lyx-icon /usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/lyx2.3.svg > desktop

Re: One official build system?

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Georg Baum wrote: > Kornel Benko wrote: > >> OK, starting on the list first. I can only comment on the cmake part. >> >> [A] detection of external dependencies >> cmake does full detection IMHO >> [B] create .rpm >> cmake creates

Re: One official build system?

Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 16:20:49, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > OK, starting on the list first. I can only comment on the cmake part. > > > > [A] detection of external dependencies > > cmake does full detection IMHO > > [B] create .rpm > >

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > OK, starting on the list first. I can only comment on the cmake part. > > [A] detection of external dependencies > cmake does full detection IMHO > [B] create .rpm > cmake creates rpm, deb, > [E] create window package > don't know, we should ask Peter > [I] Reliability >

Re: One official build system?

Am Sonntag, 5. Juni 2016 um 12:13:51, schrieb Georg Baum > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 09:55:10, schrieb Georg Baum > >> > >> However, this is not so important. With autotools we have only very few > >> people who understand the macro

Re: One official build system?

Am 05.06.2016 um 11:13 schrieb Georg Baum : > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote: >>> Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Liviu Andronic : If moving to cmake definitively

Re: One official build system?

Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 09:55:10, schrieb Georg Baum >> >> However, this is not so important. With autotools we have only very few >> people who understand the macro stuff in m4/, config/ and configure.ac, >> but everybody is able to do his modifications to the various

Re: One official build system?

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote: >> >> > Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Liviu Andronic : >> > >> > If moving to cmake definitively would imply losing version suffix >> > functionality, this would be a big issue for my

Re: One official build system?

Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 15:36:37, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:40:59PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > I'm still not sure what the implications of moving to CMake as our > > > official build system are (I should have made

Re: One official build system?

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:40:59PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > I'm still not sure what the implications of moving to CMake as our > > official build system are (I should have made this more clear in my > > To start with: If you make tarball with autotools and cmake is

Re: One official build system?

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote: > > > Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Liviu Andronic : > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum > > wrote: > >> One thing I noticed recently is the > >> version suffix:

Re: One official build system?

> Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Liviu Andronic : > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum > wrote: >> One thing I noticed recently is the >> version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you >> can only

Re: One official build system?

On 04/06/2016 10:18, Georg Baum wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Hi Guys, Funny to discover that the same discussion is coming back every couple of years :-) I am not surprised at all, maintaining two build systems with such a small amount of developers is simply stupid. I agree. The main

Re: One official build system?

Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 10:15:03, schrieb Liviu Andronic > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum > wrote: > > One thing I noticed recently is the > > version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you > >

Re: One official build system?

Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 09:55:10, schrieb Georg Baum > Richard Heck wrote: > > > On 06/03/2016 04:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > >>> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck

Re: One official build system?

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Funny to discover that the same discussion is coming back every couple > of years :-) I am not surprised at all, maintaining two build systems with such a small amount of developers is simply stupid. > I think the only point to discuss is the GLOB

Re: One official build system?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum wrote: > One thing I noticed recently is the > version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you > can only toggle between a predefined one or none at all, which is a problem > if you want to

Re: One official build system?

Richard Heck wrote: > On 06/03/2016 04:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: >>> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck >>> I guess maybe there is a question worth discussing here about how many

Re: One official build system?

Hi Guys, Funny to discover that the same discussion is coming back every couple of years :-) On 03/06/2016 22:22, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 03/06/16 à 18:42, Richard Heck a écrit : Same here. I am used to autotools, so I use it. I have reservations about cmake, but I would have some

Re: One official build system?

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > I'm still not sure what the implications of moving to CMake as our > official build system are (I should have made this more clear in my To start with: If you make tarball with autotools and cmake is there difference between those two, do we get the same files/and their

Re: One official build system?

> The following email thread (3 years ago) suggests that we would like to > move to one official build system in the long-run across all platforms, > but that there were barriers to using CMake: > http://marc.info/?i=kmrd28$e1k$1%20()%20ger%20!%20gmane%20!%20org > > Have those is

Re: One official build system?

On 06/03/2016 04:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: >> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck >>> I guess maybe there is a question worth discussing here about how many >>> of us understand cmake well

Re: One official build system?

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck > > On 06/03/2016 11:37 AM, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 1:16:04 AM WEST Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > >> From what I understand, most

Re: One official build system?

Le 03/06/16 à 18:42, Richard Heck a écrit : Same here. I am used to autotools, so I use it. I have reservations about cmake, but I would have some against autotools if I was not used to it already. All I ask from cmake is that it does the right think (i.e. what we advise people to do) by

Re: One official build system?

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:34:15AM -0600, Joel Kulesza wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Guillaume Munch wrote: > > > > > What are the > > advantages? What are the basic commands? How do you set up > > out-of-directory builds? > > > > > I am far from an expert; however, a

Re: One official build system?

Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck > On 06/03/2016 11:37 AM, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 1:16:04 AM WEST Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> From what I understand, most developers on Linux use autotools. I can't > >> tell if this is

Re: One official build system?

On 06/03/2016 11:37 AM, José Abílio Matos wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2016 1:16:04 AM WEST Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> From what I understand, most developers on Linux use autotools. I can't >> tell if this is because that is what most developers have experience >> with or if it is because autotools

Re: One official build system?

On Friday, June 3, 2016 1:16:04 AM WEST Scott Kostyshak wrote: > From what I understand, most developers on Linux use autotools. I can't > tell if this is because that is what most developers have experience > with or if it is because autotools has other advantages. > > Scott In my case I use

Re: One official build system?

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Guillaume Munch wrote: > > What are the > advantages? What are the basic commands? How do you set up > out-of-directory builds? > > I am far from an expert; however, a self-contained and somewhat compact application of CMake is available here:

Re: One official build system?

Le 03/06/2016 06:16, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : Dear all, The following email thread (3 years ago) suggests that we would like to move to one official build system in the long-run across all platforms, but that there were barriers to using CMake: http://marc.info/?i=kmrd28$e1k$1%20()%20ger%20

One official build system?

Dear all, The following email thread (3 years ago) suggests that we would like to move to one official build system in the long-run across all platforms, but that there were barriers to using CMake: http://marc.info/?i=kmrd28$e1k$1%20()%20ger%20!%20gmane%20!%20org Have those issues been resolved