Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Just a reminder that the next chat is scheduled for Friday, March 7,
2008, 10:00--11:00 UTC on irc://freenode/ooopackaging.
And the transcript:
[2008-03-07 11:00:34] <sb_> A warm welcome, everybody. Anything to
discuss, anybody?
[2008-03-07 11:01:19] <xiuzhi> hi all
[2008-03-07 11:02:21] -->| obr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-188be10403f77368) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2008-03-07 11:02:26] <obr> Moin
[2008-03-07 11:02:44] <is_> Hi all
[2008-03-07 11:04:29] <xiuzhi> how to know which files belong to one
feature? there are too many files and features in OOo,it need many
labour to do so, I think. I donnot know which feature is a good start
point. who can give me some advice?
[2008-03-07 11:04:29] <kr> hi there
[2008-03-07 11:05:20] <kr> a starting point a the build dependencies ...
[2008-03-07 11:05:53] <is_> The product is defined in scp2
[2008-03-07 11:06:38] <kr> yes, but AFAIK this is two level only ...
either root or non root :-)
[2008-03-07 11:06:57] <xiuzhi> maybe I should cut the OOo to small one,
for example, cut it to no more than 80M, then add feature one by one. is
it possibe ?
[2008-03-07 11:07:36] <is_> with the current packaging process this is
not possible
[2008-03-07 11:08:03] <is_> in scp2 there is one script for OOo
(setup_osl.in), which is used to generate one installation set.
[2008-03-07 11:08:41] <is_> you can shift files from one package to
another package, but currently you cannot create different installation sets
[2008-03-07 11:09:11] <kr> IMHO we need a dependency concept ... help
depends on writer which depends on sfx/svx which depends on Uno etc.
[2008-03-07 11:10:25] <kr> a product definition than just lists the
desired features ... everything else gets pulled in by the dependencies
[2008-03-07 11:12:03] <is_> But this is not the existing process, in
which xiuzhi can make his changes
[2008-03-07 11:12:10] <kr> OOo suite could be defined as: writer, calc,
impress, draw, writer-help, writer-templates, writer-wizards etc.
[2008-03-07 11:12:42] <kr> is_: you are right - but that is what we
should head to
[2008-03-07 11:13:15] <is_> kr: I think, xiuzhi wants to start earlier
[2008-03-07 11:14:01] <is_> and first of all one needs to understand the
existing process with scp2 and instsetoo_native
[2008-03-07 11:14:29] <kr> I understand, so in case we would implement
the dependency approach, we than need the runtime dependencies to
re-model the product structure
[2008-03-07 11:15:07] <kr> depends on what you want to work on :-)
[2008-03-07 11:15:42] -->| _Nesshof_ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
has joined #ooopackaging
[2008-03-07 11:15:42] <xiuzhi> I found that the soure of swriter and
sweb is dependent now. need we split writer source to writer and web ?
[2008-03-07 11:16:55] <kr> at first I would avoid splitting sources /
libraries / modules etc. - I would concentrate on the runtime
dependencies as they are now
[2008-03-07 11:17:39] <xiuzhi> kr:runtime dependencies? please say more
about it
[2008-03-07 11:17:56] <kr> later on I would see if I can gain something
by splitting these (modules ...)
[2008-03-07 11:18:38] <kr> mmhhh ... with runtime dependencies I mean
everything needed e.g. to use the plain writer
[2008-03-07 11:19:30] <kr> these are obviously not templates,
dictionaries, help, calc, impress, draw (at least not its front-end) ...
[2008-03-07 11:20:15] <kr> also most filters are likely unneeded ...
[2008-03-07 11:22:38] <kr> obvious dependencies are: library link
dependencies
[2008-03-07 11:22:50] <xiuzhi> do you mean ,for example, that I should
split the core of the writer , unincluding the template ,dictionaries, ...?
[2008-03-07 11:24:35] <kr> if you mean the writer implementation, I
would split this yet, but may be later on, I would try to find the
"obvious" dependencies, such as link libraries, resources, .xcu files,
icons etc.
[2008-03-07 11:24:55] <kr> certainly meant: would _not_ split this yet ;-)
[2008-03-07 11:26:09] <xiuzhi> the libraries needed by writer
application at the first step,right ?
[2008-03-07 11:28:27] <kr> let me think ... the directly linked
libraries are obvious, dynamically loaded libraries (components) are
less obvious
[2008-03-07 11:30:26] <xiuzhi> see. so the first thing that I should do
is to see which .dll needed by running writer
[2008-03-07 11:31:16] <kr> it may make sense to use the "module" as the
level examination - we already know the build dependencies as defined in
the "build.lst", but these are not necessarily the same as the runtime
dependencies ...
[2008-03-07 11:33:25] <kr> yes, these are likely most of the core
libraries but probably does not need most of the wizards, help, basic/
IDE , you name it :-)
[2008-03-07 11:33:25] <xiuzhi> see
[2008-03-07 11:36:38] <kr> do others have an opinion on that? does this
sound reasonable -- nor not?
[2008-03-07 11:39:00] <sb_> sorry, at least I have no clear idea at the
moment how I would tackle such a task...
[2008-03-07 11:41:39] <xiuzhi> How to track how many "module" needed by
writer? what do you think about using the call stack to do so by using
Ms .NET IDE debugging OOo? do you have any good tools to use?
[2008-03-07 11:43:47] <kr> may be strace ...?
[2008-03-07 11:45:33] <xiuzhi> tracing
[2008-03-07 11:46:20] <xiuzhi> yes, trace
[2008-03-07 11:49:40] <kr> naively I would just use strace to find out
which files get opened while I work with the writer ... I am aware, that
this is not an ideal approach
[2008-03-07 11:50:58] <kr> ideally the writer would know what it needs
in the first instance ... e.g. so and so localization, this and that
icon etc., these standard filters ... but this is the information we
actually need to find
[2008-03-07 11:51:45] <kr> hey ... if anybody thinks that this is not
the way to go - please give me a sign ;-)
[2008-03-07 11:52:09] <kr> ... and an alternative :-)
[2008-03-07 11:52:22] <xiuzhi> strace is good tool
[2008-03-07 11:53:48] <kr> sb_: what do you think how we should proceed
? What would it look like ideally from your point of view?
[2008-03-07 11:53:49] <xiuzhi> kr:ok. thank you.
[2008-03-07 11:54:57] <sb_> as I said: no brain cycles spent on that yet
[2008-03-07 11:58:05] <kr> ok, until we have insights, I think the
"plan" is, to find the runtime dependencies between the source modules
(the build dependencies being a good start) - the runtime dependencies
can later be used to model the relationships (dependencies / provisions)
between our package building blocks (e.g. rpm)
[2008-03-07 11:59:59] <kr> some dependencies are concrete, such as
writer depends on sfx, others are virtual, suchs as writer depends on a
locale (while locale may be implemented multiple times)
[2008-03-07 12:02:52] <kr> I started to express my understanding on a
wiki page
(http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Efforts/Package_Restructuring/Modelling),
which we may want to use for further discussions ...
[2008-03-07 12:05:19] <xiuzhi> helpful... I will study it. :)
[2008-03-07 12:05:22] <kr> Anything else? I have to leave in a minute
(and I am on vacation next week) ...
[2008-03-07 12:05:35] <sb_> its lunchtime here (and the 1h time slot is
over), so I would drop out now (and stop the recording...)
[2008-03-07 12:05:35] <xiuzhi> nothing from me
[2008-03-07 12:05:51] <sb_> so: bye
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
