Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
On 2/9/06, Johannes Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But would be astounding if no one else tried to compile from that tarball [2.0.1] for two month. Maybe someone did and gave up silently. I did try, and eventually succeeded, with lots of help. I didn't run into problems with epm, but this was on a mac using --with-epm=internal on the configure line. I'll echo the comment that OO is difficult to compile. It might be worth adding a note to that effect in the build instructions, perhaps with Heiner's nice list of reasons why, just to set expectations and explicitly encourage prospective new developers to get help. doug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
--- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: 2.0.1 source tarball. It's an directory unotools there, but no unodevtools. I just started another try to compile that tarball and for this adventure I additionally checked out unodevtools via CVS. May it help. Ah, bug in the creation script for the source tar balls. Now we get somewhere. I'll forward this. Thanks. But would be astounding if no one else tried to compile from that tarball for two month. Maybe someone did and gave up silently. But ok, seems the manually added unodevtools directory worked for me: The build process went through this night and unodevtools/unxfbsd.pro is populated. Epm creates the rpm-archives, that's the regular way to obtain installation sets. Well, it didn't create a rpm. It created a load of files like openoffice.org-base-2.0.1-1-freebsd-6.0-intel.tgz. Extracting all of these into one directory and calling soffice works. People usually install a version and copy files into the installation (symlinks are nice here). But to officially pass your work to QA you'll need an installation set anyway. Also the automated smoketest requires at least one installation set. One time a full install would be ok of course. Need to find out what file to copy/link, but that should be more easy. Thanks so far for your help and patience. I guess I'll shout^Wcome again if tweaking the source and compiling/running doesn't work. Johannes ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
Hi Johannes, On Wednesday 08 February 2006 12:19, Johannes Walther wrote: Epm creates the rpm-archives, that's the regular way to obtain installation sets. Ok, but the point I don't get (and you seem to miss seeing) is *why* do I need an installation set. That's ok if I just want compile and use OOo, but do all you developers constantly tweak the source, compile *and then* build installation sets, install OOo and see if your tweak worked? No, of course ;-) linkoo was invented for this, see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Hacking#Linkoo_.26_Limitations for a rough description. It resides in solenv/bin . Basically - you install your build somehow (be it from an installation set, or using ooinstall), and run linkoo over your build tree the installation set. Then when you compile your change, you'll see it immediately after the OOo restart. And talking of ooinstall, OOo can be installed even without making the installation set - but it's quite a hacky way. ooo-build has 'ooinstall' for that - see http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/ooo-build/bin/ooinstall?view=markup Unfortunately - it hasn't been up-streamed yet. Doesn't OOo run from the compilation target directory? Not sure what do you mean? Regards, Jan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
Johannes Walther wrote: --- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Well to me it looks like your checkout is broken because you definitely missing at least two required modules. You can check them out by name, for example cvs -d ... co epm. It's no wonder your build broke ... Ok, that's the explanation. That and why I disabled I already explained - truly my fault. What makes the unodevtools directory missing I don't know. BTW ... you did check out? Or did you download the source tarball and the modules are missing in the source tarball? 2.0.1 source tarball. It's an directory unotools there, but no unodevtools. I just started another try to compile that tarball and for this adventure I additionally checked out unodevtools via CVS. May it help. Ah, bug in the creation script for the source tar balls. Now we get somewhere. I'll forward this. Epm creates the rpm-archives, that's the regular way to obtain installation sets. Ok, but the point I don't get (and you seem to miss seeing) is *why* do I need an installation set. That's ok if I just want compile and use OOo, but do all you developers constantly tweak the source, compile *and then* build installation sets, install OOo and see if your tweak worked? Doesn't OOo run from the compilation target directory? No, not right away. A lot of additional tasks are done during installation like the registration of components. People usually install a version and copy files into the installation (symlinks are nice here). But to officially pass your work to QA you'll need an installation set anyway. Also the automated smoketest requires at least one installation set. There used to be a way to just create tar-balls, don't know if it still works. It should, but it might be not that often used and thus subject to bit rot. Oh, nice. If it works I'm looking forward getting rpm's my system (FreeBSD as mentioned) can't handle (by default). Won't work every time :-) Sure, I'll not rely on that. http://oootranslation.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/ Thanks, they're there (someone should update the docs). But, as expected not, for my exotic system. Heiner - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
--- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Well to me it looks like your checkout is broken because you definitely missing at least two required modules. You can check them out by name, for example cvs -d ... co epm. It's no wonder your build broke ... Ok, that's the explanation. That and why I disabled I already explained - truly my fault. What makes the unodevtools directory missing I don't know. BTW ... you did check out? Or did you download the source tarball and the modules are missing in the source tarball? 2.0.1 source tarball. It's an directory unotools there, but no unodevtools. I just started another try to compile that tarball and for this adventure I additionally checked out unodevtools via CVS. May it help. Epm creates the rpm-archives, that's the regular way to obtain installation sets. Ok, but the point I don't get (and you seem to miss seeing) is *why* do I need an installation set. That's ok if I just want compile and use OOo, but do all you developers constantly tweak the source, compile *and then* build installation sets, install OOo and see if your tweak worked? Doesn't OOo run from the compilation target directory? There used to be a way to just create tar-balls, don't know if it still works. It should, but it might be not that often used and thus subject to bit rot. Oh, nice. If it works I'm looking forward getting rpm's my system (FreeBSD as mentioned) can't handle (by default). Won't work every time :-) Sure, I'll not rely on that. http://oootranslation.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/ Thanks, they're there (someone should update the docs). But, as expected not, for my exotic system. Johannes ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
Hi Johannes, compiling OOo is difficult, no doubt. Four main reasons for that: a) it's probably a magnitude bigger than most other OpenSource projects b) it's in a constant flux c) it's has a hell of dependencies d) C++ compilers are still more varying than say C compilers, so choice of compilers matters e) it's runs on a many diverse platforms, thus increased complexity We (that is the OOo developers) do our best to keep everything working but things will break sometimes. Looking back at your original post it seems that you didn't build module 'epm' and you seem to miss the module 'unodevtools' completely. 'epm' is the packager, so it's no wonder you didn't get any packages. Getting started with OOo development can be daunting, that's true. If something breaks you can ask here or on IRC. If you can prove something is broken, file an issue. As in any OpenSource project it may take some time to get an answer and sometimes you'll get no answer at all. On the other hand, asking how it could be that the maintainer create such a fragile product might not lead to someone of the maintainers lending a helpful hand ... Heiner Johannes Walther wrote: --- Henrik Sundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I got very nice, quick, and helpful responses when I had problems compiling the code with only the free versions of MS compilers. Could it have anything to do with the way You ask for help? Maybe it has, but I can't say. You're free to read my post from 2006-03-02 13:11 and tell me if it was written in bad style - but produced no result though. My post from last hour wasn't to ask for help compiling - at the moment I gave up, being frustrated after sitting here for nearly ten hours without anything done. I just wanted to know why the code produced by the maintainers is so fragile, so uncompilable - or the other way around the docu/tools are that bad/missleading. Johannes ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien OpenOffice.org release engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
Hi Jens-Heiner, thank you for your detailed answer. [...] We (that is the OOo developers) do our best to keep everything working but things will break sometimes. Well, that's ok for a bleeding edge cvs checkout, but I didn't expect that for either 2.0.1 sources or an older milestone. Looking back at your original post it seems that you didn't build module 'epm' and you seem to miss the module 'unodevtools' completely. That's right and I don't know why. I looked for an directory of that name but didn't find one. 'epm' is the packager, so it's no wonder you didn't get any packages. Indeed I had disabled the epm. It was because I, as I wrote, don't want/need to supply others with my build or even install OOo in other directories. But from what you wrote it is a must to build packages. Is that true? On the other hand, asking how it could be that the maintainer create such a fragile product might not lead to someone of the maintainers lending a helpful hand ... While you're right that accuse others mostly don't create helpful responses, isn't it quite ironic, it helped this this though it wasn't the intention of my second post? BTW: Various documents and http://download.openoffice.org mention a possibility to download the Solver/Output Tree. While I fear there won't be one in either tarball or CVS for FreeBSD, I even can't finde one for Linux or Windows. Flaw in the pages or in the data? Johannes ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
Hi Johannes, Johannes Walther wrote: Hi Jens-Heiner, thank you for your detailed answer. [...] We (that is the OOo developers) do our best to keep everything working but things will break sometimes. Well, that's ok for a bleeding edge cvs checkout, but I didn't expect that for either 2.0.1 sources or an older milestone. Well to me it looks like your checkout is broken because you definitely missing at least two required modules. You can check them out by name, for example cvs -d ... co epm. It's no wonder your build broke ... BTW ... you did check out? Or did you download the source tarball and the modules are missing in the source tarball? Looking back at your original post it seems that you didn't build module 'epm' and you seem to miss the module 'unodevtools' completely. That's right and I don't know why. I looked for an directory of that name but didn't find one. 'epm' is the packager, so it's no wonder you didn't get any packages. Indeed I had disabled the epm. It was because I, as I wrote, don't want/need to supply others with my build or even install OOo in other directories. But from what you wrote it is a must to build packages. Is that true? Epm creates the rpm-archives, that's the regular way to obtain installation sets. There used to be a way to just create tar-balls, don't know if it still works. It should, but it might be not that often used and thus subject to bit rot. On the other hand, asking how it could be that the maintainer create such a fragile product might not lead to someone of the maintainers lending a helpful hand ... While you're right that accuse others mostly don't create helpful responses, isn't it quite ironic, it helped this this though it wasn't the intention of my second post? Won't work every time :-) BTW: Various documents and http://download.openoffice.org mention a possibility to download the Solver/Output Tree. While I fear there won't be one in either tarball or CVS for FreeBSD, I even can't finde one for Linux or Windows. Flaw in the pages or in the data? A solver tar ball is a set of prebuild binaries, so the stuff is not committed to CVS. They are not regularly provided, due to their size. If there is a solver you can find it here: http://oootranslation.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/ Heiner -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
2006/2/5, Johannes Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I now spent two days trying to compile OO. I tried different ways, read the Wiki and linked documents but always failed. What is it that makes you so hostile against people who try compiling OO? As I wrote two days ago, a simple build of the 2.0.1 tarball failed after 17 hours (resp. I don't even know if it failed, but at least it didn't run). That was with dmake in toplevel dir. Then I tried compiling it from 2.0.1 CVS (with build debug=true --all) which was even worse. First it threw error: duplicate `static` when build was called with debug=true in store/source/filelckb.cxx. Then minutes after that another problem arose while processing some file I forgot into an html and I was stuck. Then I tried ooo-build (ooo-build-src680.150.0). Not mentioning its configure doesn't understand --with-gnu-cp and --with-gnu-patch so it's hard to get it work on FreeBSD. But what stopped everything was that patching psprint_config/configuration/ppds/makefile.mk with psprint_config-no-orig.diff failed even before compilation started. Why the hell can't you produce code that at least builds? Johannes Well, I got very nice, quick, and helpful responses when I had problems compiling the code with only the free versions of MS compilers. Could it have anything to do with the way You ask for help? /$ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
I now spent two days trying to compile OO. I tried different ways, read the Wiki and linked documents but always failed. What is it that makes you so hostile against people who try compiling OO? As I wrote two days ago, a simple build of the 2.0.1 tarball failed after 17 hours (resp. I don't even know if it failed, but at least it didn't run). That was with dmake in toplevel dir. Then I tried compiling it from 2.0.1 CVS (with build debug=true --all) which was even worse. First it threw error: duplicate `static` when build was called with debug=true in store/source/filelckb.cxx. Then minutes after that another problem arose while processing some file I forgot into an html and I was stuck. Then I tried ooo-build (ooo-build-src680.150.0). Not mentioning its configure doesn't understand --with-gnu-cp and --with-gnu-patch so it's hard to get it work on FreeBSD. But what stopped everything was that patching psprint_config/configuration/ppds/makefile.mk with psprint_config-no-orig.diff failed even before compilation started. Why the hell can't you produce code that at least builds? Johannes ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] why making compiling OO such a secret?
--- Henrik Sundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I got very nice, quick, and helpful responses when I had problems compiling the code with only the free versions of MS compilers. Could it have anything to do with the way You ask for help? Maybe it has, but I can't say. You're free to read my post from 2006-03-02 13:11 and tell me if it was written in bad style - but produced no result though. My post from last hour wasn't to ask for help compiling - at the moment I gave up, being frustrated after sitting here for nearly ten hours without anything done. I just wanted to know why the code produced by the maintainers is so fragile, so uncompilable - or the other way around the docu/tools are that bad/missleading. Johannes ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
