Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Martin Hollmichel]

On 23.06.2010 00:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:

On 22.06.2010 14:49, Bernd Eilers wrote:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,



Hi,


the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone
is a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed.
The same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue
earlier or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"?


Because the data of the issue doesn´t match the data of the CWS and we
have an inconsistent state in the tools that document what we are doing.

Where is the point of not wanting to also change the issue data if the
decision when to fix the issue did change. Why do you want to refuse to
document that by changing the issue data.

The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer that
there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on another CWS
which is based on another codeline or which need to be adjusted to be
fixed on another target which might eventually also need an agreement
about that with other stakeholders involved.


That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.



Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 


camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


That's complete nonsense. Setting a target to an issue or CWS can be 
done short before or even after a CWS is integrated. If you ever had 
to change the targets of issues or CWS just because you had set them 
to the "allowed" target but then - when the CWS did not make it into 
the release - had to change it again, you might understand why I think 
that is bureaucratic humbug. The target release of an issue or CWS 
*before* it gets integrated is unrelated to what is documented or even 
to what exactly ends in the release. In a "train model" you never know 
the time of arrival exactly before the train really arrives. So a 
"target release" is just a declaration of what is aimed for, nothing 
else. Why else are we retargetting so much issues each and every release?


From my experience from the 10 past years we should only set the target 
milestone when the code actually get integrated. From my point of view 
we should only set target milestones for regression issues and stoppers 
only. Nevertheless I think a cws should only be integrated if all issues 
have the right milestone set, so that we can track with Issuezilla what 
actually got into the release. Making this random will lead that the 
target milestone will randomly set. I will set the nomination right 
anyhow for 3.4 for release management only, so these people will be the 
only one to fight their bureaucratic humbug theirself :-).


Martin


Ciao,
Mathias




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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Martin Hollmichel]

On 22.06.2010 16:52, Philipp Lohmann wrote:

Hi,

On 6/22/10 2:49 PM, Bernd Eilers wrote:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.



Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 


camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


Name calling aside: what about issues concerning extensions ? Right 
now I have to move the target from the correct "milestone 1" of an 
extension to "3.3" or some such to satisfy EIS. Which is kind of 
bogus. However the CWS should be "3.4" or some such since that marks 
into which repository code line the CWS will get integrated.
one of the objective of extensions was to have an Office independent 
release schedule. This automatically leads to an own issue tracking and 
own repository, from my point of view we even can have a simplified 
development process, since all the cws handling was introduced not to 
break office code. So I would leave it to the developers of the 
extension whether they want to have cws or another model. Sane 
extensions can't break office code !

Extensions, please break out of the Office workspace,


Just my 2 cents, pl

+2 cent,

Martin



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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jussi Pakkanen wrote:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Martin Hollmichel
 wrote:

  

usually I analyse the build logs for understanding these kind of mechanisms,
here's my extract for sal module on Linux:
...
tr -d "\015" < sal.map | awk -f ./solenv/bin/addsym.awk >
../unxlngi6.pro/misc/sal_uno_sal.map

Making: ../unxlngi6.pro/lib/libuno_sal.so.3
g++ -Wl,-z,noexecstack -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions
-Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-new -Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-typeinfo
-Wl,--hash-style=both -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN' "-Wl,-hlibuno_sal.so.3" -shared
-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--version-script ../unxlngi6.pro/misc/sal_uno_sal.map ...



There seem to be two phases in this. First you generate the target
file with awk and then pass it to the linker. The first one is
straightforward.

The latter is a bit trickier but not very hard. First you set a
dependency between the shared library and the generated version file.
Then you need to pass the file to the linker. CMake allows you to
define custom linker flags per target. To get the above you would add
something like this:

set_target_properties(sal PROPERTIES LINK_FLAGS "-Wl,--version-script
${GENERATED_SAL_MAP_FILE}")

  
the process for Windows (MSVC) is very similar, I already invented a 
function add_mapfile( ) to do the job. I guess this 
approach will work for all other platforms as well.


thanks,

Martin


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

  



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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jussi Pakkanen wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Martin Hollmichel
 wrote:

  

one problem right now is that the usage of linker mapfiles (e.g.
sal/util/sal.map) are not straight supported by cmake, unfortunately all
the
creation of several win32 import libraries are dependent to such
mechanism,
only some of the OOo Libs support the declspec(dllexport) or the Unix
visibility mechanisms. so here some work is required.


I'll try to look into this.

  

thanks,



I looked into it and got lost in a twisty passage of makefiles, Perl
scripts and lib/a/so files. Could someone give a brief description on
how the system works. Specifically how the different files are
processed and what is finally passed to the linker.
  
usually I analyse the build logs for understanding these kind of 
mechanisms, here's my extract for sal module on Linux:

...
tr -d "\015" < sal.map | awk -f ./solenv/bin/addsym.awk > 
../unxlngi6.pro/misc/sal_uno_sal.map


Making: ../unxlngi6.pro/lib/libuno_sal.so.3
g++ -Wl,-z,noexecstack -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,defs 
-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions -Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-new 
-Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-typeinfo -Wl,--hash-style=both 
-Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN' "-Wl,-hlibuno_sal.so.3" -shared -Wl,-O1 
-Wl,--version-script ../unxlngi6.pro/misc/sal_uno_sal.map ...

Another question is whether the map files currently solve any problem
that cannot be dealt with native symbol visibility settings?
  
as the linker script above shows, the option "-version script" is used, 
the reason for this is explained in the ld man page:
"Specify the name of a version script to the linker.  This is typically 
used when creating shared libraries to specifc additional information 
about the version hierarchy for the library being created.  This option 
is only fully supported on platforms which support shared libraries; see 
VERSION.  It is partially supported on PE platforms, which can use  
version scripts to filter symbol visibility in auto-export mode: any 
symbols marked local in the version script will not be exported."


e.g. an exerpt from the sal-map file:

"...
UDK_3.7 { # OOo 2.4
   global:
   osl_loadModuleRelative;
} UDK_3.6;

UDK_3.8 { # OOo 3.0
   global:
   rtl_bootstrap_encode;
   rtl_convertStringToUString;
   rtl_math_approxValue;
} UDK_3.7;

UDK_3.9 { # OOo 3.1
   global:
   osl_mapFile;
   osl_unmapFile;

   osl_readFileAt;
   osl_writeFileAt;

   rtl_math_expm1;
   rtl_math_log1p;
   rtl_math_atanh;
} UDK_3.8;

UDK_3.10 { # OOo 3.2
   global:
   rtl_logfile_hasLogFile;
   rtl_math_erf;
   rtl_math_erfc;
   rtl_math_asinh;
   rtl_math_acosh;
} UDK_3.9;"


But you're also right, there are also still libraries around where the 
native symbol visibilty could (and IMHO should) be used, but this would 
require quite a lot manual code changes (many already have been done, 
but not all yet),


hth,

Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Martin Hollmichel wrote:



 There's also the dmake
-> cmake converter script so you don't have to keep writing the files
by hand.

  
from what I've learned from cmake so far, it seems the best idea to do 
an 1:1 conversion since this might lead to too much targets (and thus 
dependencies) and writing CMakeLists.txt seem in some cases lead to 
more efficient makefiles.
of course this should read as "it seems _not_ the best idea, to do an 
1:1 conversion",


Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jussi Pakkanen wrote:

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Martin Hollmichel
 wrote:

  

yes, thank you, I used and modified some of your work (add_idl_db and
build_rdb_from db functions) and added a more modules (up to rsc now).



A word of warning: the functions I have written to deal with javamaker
etc are broken. They work when run the first time but not the second
time. I did not have the time and energy to debug them, I just wanted
to get some sorts of results.

  

as I said, I modified them to make them finally work :-)

one problem right now is that the usage of linker mapfiles (e.g.
sal/util/sal.map) are not straight supported by cmake, unfortunately all the
creation of several win32 import libraries are dependent to such mechanism,
only some of the OOo Libs support the declspec(dllexport) or the Unix
visibility mechanisms. so here some work is required.



I'll try to look into this.
  

thanks,

Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jussi Pakkanen wrote:

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Martin Hollmichel
 wrote:

  

I started some time ago a cmake prototype for OOo in my spare time
(http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/mh6bc/) for the latest status
please see the latest ReadMe.txt in the Source root for the most recent
status). You're invited to join this prototype, but be warned: it does not
work and kills your cat when try to run that :-).



You might want to look look at my attempt:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/ooo-build/2009-August/000181.html
  
yes, thank you, I used and modified some of your work (add_idl_db and 
build_rdb_from db functions) and added a more modules (up to rsc now).

It goes quite a lot further and solves some of the issues listed in
your readme (detecting STLPort and Boost, etc).

for the moment the external libraries are not in my main focus,

 There's also the dmake
-> cmake converter script so you don't have to keep writing the files
by hand.

  
from what I've learned from cmake so far, it seems the best idea to do 
an 1:1 conversion since this might lead to too much targets (and thus 
dependencies) and writing CMakeLists.txt seem in some cases lead to more 
efficient makefiles.


one problem right now is that the usage of linker mapfiles (e.g. 
sal/util/sal.map) are not straight supported by cmake, unfortunately all 
the creation of several win32 import libraries are dependent to such 
mechanism, only some of the OOo Libs support the declspec(dllexport) or 
the Unix visibility mechanisms. so here some work is required.


Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Mathias Bauer wrote:

Jussi Pakkanen wrote:

  

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Thorsten Behrens  wrote:



functionality? Even if CMake eventually turns out to be too slow,
would it not make more sense to write your own custom CMake back
end rather than the configuration/generation front end?



I guess it's now my turn to ask for sample code here. ;)
  

For a backend? No, sorry. I have never looked into that.

But the issue raised earlier was that because CMake's Makefiles are
recursive (or something) they are too slow, probably because automake
does it this way and is slow. I personally do not think this will be
an issue. When running on Windows, the time taken by makefiles when
changing directories is insignificant compared to the time taken by
the compiler. But I have only tried it under Virtualbox and not at all
thoroughly.



The problem is not because the makefiles "are" recursive. The problem is
that it looks if CMake does not offer a way to include all makefiles of
the whole project (or at least larger parts of it if you think about a
split build) into a single process without clashing of target names.
  
I can imagine that there might be a clashing of target names in a 1:1 
transistion from makefile,mk to other makefiles, but I general I would 
consider the existance of target name clashes as a brain node (aka bug) 
which should be solved easy.

So the only way to reuse CMake makefiles for a complete build is
recursively calling them or - as we do today in OOo - serialize the
process. I don't think that this is a matter of performance per se, it's
just that the benefit is missing we wanted to get from the new "single
make process" approach.
  

no need to have this if you have unique targets, I guess ?

Regards,
Mathias

  

Martin



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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,
  

I think it's cleaner, and there's definitely not much (should I say
any?) redundancy left. Additionally, one can enhance the script to
generate makefiles for pretty much every make tool of this world,
including eclipse/netbeans/visual studio project files.



I would like to point out that what you are doing is generating your
own language and a build tool/generator based on that. There's nothing
wrong with it as such, but this is reinventing the wheel again (just
like Google's GYP). Instead of custom dmake/build.pl you would have
custom gnumakegen/gnumake_or_something. What is the benefit you get
from this instead of using something like CMake that already has a
mature implementation of this functionality? Even if CMake eventually
turns out to be too slow, would it not make more sense to write your
own custom CMake back end rather than the configuration/generation
front end?
  

I second the demand for simple, readable description files.

ath the first glance, this seem very easy with cmake, it was fun 
prototyping this on Linux for the OOo tool-chain up to the idlc. 
regmerge level. A lot of writing could be saved in comparisons to Ooo 
current build system. during the prototyping I also was surprise about 
all the stuff we're doing in Ooo's makefile's (some superfluous, some 
really needed) and I was surprised that much of the stuff already is 
covered by cmake (just proved by reading the documentation, not all 
tested in reality). Things are getting a bit more complicated, if you're 
looking on some old grown specialties of OOo, e.g the generations of 
import libraries on Win32. At some stage it is useful, if not even 
required to have an cmake expert with the OOo project who can determine 
with some experience how and where to implement such one-off's of OOo.


so we still have three valid alternatives:
* renew and modernize our old dmake environment
* re-write the build environment with a more modern tool and use some 
more modern patterns

* reuse and enhance already abstract buildenv like cmake.

I'm not yet sure what will be the best way to go.

For further information here is a Google Tech Talk about CMake and all
related things (testing, code coverity, packaging, etc, etc) by one of
the creators. If the build tool decision is not yet final, it is worth
watching.

  
The CPack and CTest enhancements of cmake are indeed quite impressive, a 
transition from scp to CPack would be very interesting (and kicking 
build.pl / deliver.pl and solver at the same time).


I started some time ago a cmake prototype for OOo in my spare time 
(http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/mh6bc/) for the latest status 
please see the latest ReadMe.txt in the Source root for the most recent 
status). You're invited to join this prototype, but be warned: it does 
not work and kills your cat when try to run that :-).


Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] requirements for a Windows build bot and cws box

[Martin Hollmichel]

Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Martin Hollmichel wrote:
  

Pavel, Thorsten, you may want to comment or approve these
spendings for the developer budget ?


+1 for the Windows box/server. We desperately need communi Windows
machine. I;d go with terminal services directly from the
beginning.

-1 for the regular yearly payment for the hosting services. Can we
do it better/cheeper? Can anyone offer/sponsor this service for
us?
  

please keep in mind that this yearly payment includes 100MBit and
unlimitted traffic, that also will allow the download of builded
cws, I think it's worth the price, but I'm open for better or
cheaper offers, how long we want to wait for those offers ?



+1 for the full package; if someone finds a cheaper offer that's of
course fine by me. Win32 builds are a pain point for me, and
historically the dev budget has not been fully spent, so no point in
haggling too much here.

What about reviewing the hosting options again next year?
  
there is no minimal duration for the hosting, so we're free to review 
the hosting options at any time.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten
  

Martin



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

Re: [tools-dev] requirements for a Windows build bot and cws box

[Martin Hollmichel]

Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi,

finally I come to the following proposal:

1 virtual machine running a Windows7 64bit instance with Visual Studio 
Standard installed for the Windows tinderbox.
2 additional virtual windows machines available for Developers, with 
the Express Version installed. In case we discover that we need more 
parallel sessions available, we consider the installation of Windows 
Server.
the Virtual Boxes will be hosted on a Quad Core, 12 GB RAM machine in 
a data center


any comments ?

Martin

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Funding_And_Budgets/Developer/WindowsBox#Proposal_for_a_Windows_Box 



Pavel, Thorsten, you may want to comment or approve these spendings for 
the developer budget ?


Martin


Martin Hollmichel wrote:

All,

I got a request to do some funding for a Windows build bot (to be 
funded be the OOo project, not by Sun as my mail adress suggest). 
build bots are now integrated in the EIS and are of invaluable help 
for development and QA.


I can think of several scenarios:

minimal buildbot: a virtual windows (home) instance on some already 
existent hardware plus a MS Compiler professional license (estimated 
cost: ca. 1000 € once).


fast build bot: windows box on bare iron or virtualized in a hosting 
center with good bandwidth for providing install sets (my estimated 
extra costs: ca. 1200 € per year extra)


fast developer machine: windows server allowing up to five 5 users, 
allowing remove building and debugging for developers with no windows 
access, several build bot instances (i have no real idea for the 
estimated hosting and license costs).


Two questions:

* what are our real demands and requirement for such a thing.
* is there anyone volunteering for collecting real prices and costs 
for the various scenarios and maintaining the resulting setup ?


Martin




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




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




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

Re: [tools-dev] .NET2003 Support

[Martin Hollmichel]

Rajith Ravi wrote:




Does it mean that .NET2003 support stips with 3.0.X and for further versions we 
need .NET2008

  
3.0.x still support .Net2003, but from OOo 3.1.x and newer at least 
.Net2005 or 2008 is required,


Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] requirements for a Windows build bot and cws box

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

finally I come to the following proposal:

1 virtual machine running a Windows7 64bit instance with Visual Studio 
Standard installed for the Windows tinderbox.
2 additional virtual windows machines available for Developers, with the 
Express Version installed. In case we discover that we need more 
parallel sessions available, we consider the installation of Windows Server.
the Virtual Boxes will be hosted on a Quad Core, 12 GB RAM machine in a 
data center


any comments ?

Martin

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Funding_And_Budgets/Developer/WindowsBox#Proposal_for_a_Windows_Box

Martin Hollmichel wrote:

All,

I got a request to do some funding for a Windows build bot (to be 
funded be the OOo project, not by Sun as my mail adress suggest). 
build bots are now integrated in the EIS and are of invaluable help 
for development and QA.


I can think of several scenarios:

minimal buildbot: a virtual windows (home) instance on some already 
existent hardware plus a MS Compiler professional license (estimated 
cost: ca. 1000 € once).


fast build bot: windows box on bare iron or virtualized in a hosting 
center with good bandwidth for providing install sets (my estimated 
extra costs: ca. 1200 € per year extra)


fast developer machine: windows server allowing up to five 5 users, 
allowing remove building and debugging for developers with no windows 
access, several build bot instances (i have no real idea for the 
estimated hosting and license costs).


Two questions:

* what are our real demands and requirement for such a thing.
* is there anyone volunteering for collecting real prices and costs 
for the various scenarios and maintaining the resulting setup ?


Martin




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




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

Re: [tools-dev] requirements for a Windows build bot and cws box

[Martin Hollmichel]

Herter, S. wrote:

If you are going to do the build bot as a virtual machine, would it be possible 
to make the VM image(s) available to third parties?
  
In theory this should be possible if you have the required licenses for 
those images. But I personally have not enough knowledge about the MS 
technologies if it is possible to ensure that an valid license will be 
verified for those images. Maybe some expert is around who is able to 
answer this question ?!

We redistribute OpenOffice with our product unmodified.  We download a copy of 
the source for the version we are redistributing so that we can be in 
compliance with the licensing.  Back when 2.x first shipped we tried to get a 
Windows build going but not having someone who could devote full time to it we 
spent months working on it off and on but never got it working.  It would be a 
huge help to small companies like us if we could download a VM image of a build 
environment we could use to build OpenOffice.  That way we can be sure that the 
source we have matches the version we are redistributing.  Having a build 
environment we could work with locally would also make it easier to try and fix 
any problems we find on our own rather than file a bug report and pray.

  
Thanks.



  

Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] requirements for a Windows build bot and cws box

[Martin Hollmichel]

bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:19:55 +0200
Martin Hollmichel  wrote:

  

All,

I got a request to do some funding for a Windows build bot (to be
funded be the OOo project, not by Sun as my mail adress suggest).
build bots are now integrated in the EIS and are of invaluable help
for development and QA.

I can think of several scenarios:

[...]

fast developer machine: windows server allowing up to five 5 users, 
allowing remove building and debugging for developers with no windows 
access, several build bot instances (i have no real idea for the 
estimated hosting and license costs).


Two questions:

* what are our real demands and requirement for such a thing.
* is there anyone volunteering for collecting real prices and costs
for the various scenarios and maintaining the resulting setup ?



IMHO, mixing buildbots and debugging on one machine is just asking for
trouble. If there is a need for both and funding is available those
should be two separate boxes (or at least two separate virtual boxes).
  
ok, running the developer machine in a virtual environment should not be 
the problem.

I know it might be tempting for licensing reasons (*) to use just one
machine, but I really think it wouldnt work in practice.
  
the main objective is to be in compliance with the licenses, that's why 
I am asking for reasonable configurations. Once we know about the costs 
for the various configuration we can decide what will be the most 
appropriate to choose.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

  

Martin

(*) BTW: Are there even CALs available for Visual Studio?
  



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

[tools-dev] requirements for a Windows build bot and cws box

[Martin Hollmichel]

All,

I got a request to do some funding for a Windows build bot (to be funded 
be the OOo project, not by Sun as my mail adress suggest). build bots 
are now integrated in the EIS and are of invaluable help for development 
and QA.


I can think of several scenarios:

minimal buildbot: a virtual windows (home) instance on some already 
existent hardware plus a MS Compiler professional license (estimated 
cost: ca. 1000 € once).


fast build bot: windows box on bare iron or virtualized in a hosting 
center with good bandwidth for providing install sets (my estimated 
extra costs: ca. 1200 € per year extra)


fast developer machine: windows server allowing up to five 5 users, 
allowing remove building and debugging for developers with no windows 
access, several build bot instances (i have no real idea for the 
estimated hosting and license costs).


Two questions:

* what are our real demands and requirement for such a thing.
* is there anyone volunteering for collecting real prices and costs for 
the various scenarios and maintaining the resulting setup ?


Martin




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

[tools-dev] should we drop gcc3 support ?

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

obviously OOo doesn't compile any longer with gcc3, see 
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=95511, should we now 
officially drop gcc3 ?


Martin


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

[tools-dev] Re: [dev] Mercurial-Implementation: OOo domain developer public keys

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi Heiner,

On Friday 28 August 2009, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

  

Please contact me if you have problems, suggestions etc.



Actually, I have a suggestion ;-)

Do you think - with the switch to Mercurial - would it be possible to stop 
using the 'CWS' and 'MWS' terminology, and instead switch to the commonly 
used 'feature branch' and 'release branch' terms?


  

+1,

Martin


Thank you,
Kendy

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

  



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

[tools-dev] Re: OOo Mercurial pilot

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi,

time to start the OOo Mercurial pilot. Please find the details here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Mercurial_Pilot

unfortunately I didn't find any time yet to join the pilot, do I have 
still have some time to participate ?


But anyhow, I have read only few comments about the pilot, maybe 
somebody from the participants can give a short summary about the status 
of the pilot ?


Are there still any open issue we have to resolve (bonsai/cws query), do 
we need to do some more preparation for the transition ?


Martin

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

Re: [tools-dev] Re: EIS2 Source code link

[Martin Hollmichel]

Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:

Martin Hollmichel  openoffice.org> writes:
  
I would like to remove this links in EIS in general, looks like another 
redundant entry point,


While we at that, could we also remove the "Administration" section? It only
contains broken links.

  
at least for me some of the links are working (and I need them for some 
EIS administration work) but +1 for removing the not working links,

Best Regards,

Bjoern

  

Martin

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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS2 Source code link

[Martin Hollmichel]

Per Eriksson wrote:

Hello,

Maybe we should change the Source code link in EIS2 to point here 
instead?


http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/
I would like to remove this links in EIS in general, looks like another 
redundant entry point,


Martin



This page (as far as I know) provides more navigation through tags, 
cws'es etc. than opengrok.


http://svn.services.openoffice.org/opengrok/xref/

Anyway CVS should be left, or marked as used for other versions.

http://projects.openoffice.org/source/browse/

Maybe a complete page with all these three links should be provided?

Best
Per

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




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

Re: [tools-dev] Adding PDF import extension

[Martin Hollmichel]

Alan,

for this question I would ask Ingo on the d...@installation list.

may I ask for the motivation to include the pdf import extension by 
default ?


Martin

Alan Yaniger wrote:

Hi list-members,


I'm trying to add the PDF import extension to my Windows build of OOo 
3.1. It's causing the installation to hang.


Below are the changes I made to the source tree. What am I doing wrong?


Thanks,

Alan


diff scp2/source/ooo/module_hidden_ooo.scp 
/cygdrive/c/OOO310_m11/Clean/scp2/source/ooo/module_hidden_ooo.scp

1235,1244d1223
<
< Module gid_Module_Root_Extension_PDFImport
<   Name = "gid_Module_Root_Extension_PDFImport";
<   Description = "gid_Module_Root_Extension_PDFImport";
<   Files = (gid_File_Bin_pdfimport);
<   InstallOrder = "2000";
<   PackageInfo = "packinfo_office.txt";
<   ParentID = gid_Module_Root;
<   Styles = (HIDDEN_ROOT);
< End

diff scp2/source/ooo/file_ooo.scp 
/cygdrive/c/OOO310_m11/Clean/scp2/source/ooo/file_ooo.scp

3171,3177d3161
< File gid_File_Bin_pdfimport

[tools-dev] DSCM - next step, start mercurial pilot

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi *,

The ESC meeting agreed more than a year ago to migrate OpenOffice.org's 
version control from CVS via subversion towards an distributed source 
code managment (DSCM) system. The ESC is also in agreement that right 
now git and mercurial are both systems which are able to fulfil the 
requirements we have but there is no vast majority towards one of the 
systems. This is no real surprise since also other projects still don't 
show a clear favorite. The ESC also is in agreement that we should 
migrate now or in the very near future we can not afford to wait which 
system will win the race. Since the release engineering team is in favor 
of mercurial I ask - as the tools project lead - the RE team to start 
the pilot for mercurial now so that we will be able to have the new DSCM 
available with the 3.2 release.
This is not an easy decision. But we had the choice, this was possible 
by the availability of the free, open source projects bzr, git and 
mercurial. Thanks to them and the teams that worked on the evaluation 
for an migration to OpenOffice.org.
This is not a decision against one of them because of technical 
concerns, it is a pragmatic decision,


Martin


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

[tools-dev] adding a new prerequisite

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

for fixing issue http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94560 
is will be required to have for the build of OpenOffice the 
redistributable package at hand for compiling the install sets (cws dv07)
Since this issue is not an issue a developer is confronted with I would 
opt to introduce the check of this prerequisite as an warning only in 
configure, so that it will not be required for newbie builder to have an 
additional binary blob required for the build,


opinions ?

Martin


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

Re: [tools-dev] SVN and email notifications (resend)

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi Stefan,

Email notifications can be implemented with the post-commit hook. We'll
implement that.

Is there any help needed with this ? Since life is now in the svn 
repository we need this,

Heiner


Martin


Stefan Taxhet wrote:

Hi,

will we see email notifications of commits to the SVN repository?
The list [EMAIL PROTECTED] is waiting for messages... ;-)

Greetings
Stefan


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi Martin,

since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into 
DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already integrated 
into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there are some quite 
huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into DEV300 today or in 
the next few days.
The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week 
(today or tomorrow).


Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone) 
could be a good basis for migration.
yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




I would suggest that we wait until DEV300 m31 is done and finished and 
then start the migration. If all goes well this could be next Monday 
and DEV300 m32 would already be on Subversion (expected about a week 
later).  I think we could also have the necessary documentation in 
place when DEV300 m32 is published.


how many days of SCM outage are you calculating for the migration ? Will 
there be the possibility to work still on open cws during the migration 
? Will there be an outtage for CVS or will just be the committing to 
HEAD be forbidden ?
I would reconsider the plan if someone steps up with a CWS nominated 
for DEV300 m32 with hundreds of changed files. In this case it would 
make sense to throw in another CVS based milestone, just to save 
ourselves a bit of work.


What are developers required to do with their open cws during the 
migration ?

Heiner


Martin




Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Jörg Jahnke wrote:

Hi,

due to the trunk-only migration mentioned below, we do no longer 
have a dependency on the first release candidate of OOo 3.0, which 
is done on the OOO300 branch. At the same time, Heiner is ready to 
start the migration. So do we want to start the migration now i.e. 
prior to the RC?
from my point of we don't need to wait for the release candidate to 
proceed with the migration as we decided to go with the trunk 
migration only (see 
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope>). If 
nobody objects I would ask you to provide a concrete plan for the 
migration starting asap.


Regards,

Jörg

Martin




Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb:

Hi,

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi Guido,

the migration is going nicely along. We do plan to migrate after 
the 3.0 RC.


- We've got a box, a Sun Fire 4150 (8 cores, 64 GB RAM, no less). The
  URL will be svn.services.openoffice.org. An updated test repository
  will be on that machine RSN.
- We'll use Subversion 1.5.1, that is with the build in merge 
tracking
- The ESC council decided after some debate about the migration 
scope,

  aka how much history do we want
  (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope)
  We will go along with option c) "trunk only", this will also help
  with later DSCM options.


Some asked, so I probably should explain it in a bit more detail 
what we mean with "trunk only" migration:
  - only history on the main development line (trunk) will be 
migrated,

thus no branches and tags
  - we'll migrate only files which are still active (nothing from
the CVS "Attic" directories)
  - binary files will be pruned to the last version
  - Localization files (*.sdf) will be pruned to the last version

Existing branches will be maintained in CVS. This includes the 
OOO300 branch, on which OpenOffice.org 3.0 will be released.


Heiner



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jörg Jahnke wrote:

Hi,

due to the trunk-only migration mentioned below, we do no longer have 
a dependency on the first release candidate of OOo 3.0, which is done 
on the OOO300 branch. At the same time, Heiner is ready to start the 
migration. So do we want to start the migration now i.e. prior to the RC?
from my point of we don't need to wait for the release candidate to 
proceed with the migration as we decided to go with the trunk migration 
only (see 
). If 
nobody objects I would ask you to provide a concrete plan for the 
migration starting asap.


Regards,

Jörg

Martin




Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb:

Hi,

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi Guido,

the migration is going nicely along. We do plan to migrate after the 
3.0 RC.


- We've got a box, a Sun Fire 4150 (8 cores, 64 GB RAM, no less). The
  URL will be svn.services.openoffice.org. An updated test repository
  will be on that machine RSN.
- We'll use Subversion 1.5.1, that is with the build in merge tracking
- The ESC council decided after some debate about the migration scope,
  aka how much history do we want
  (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope)
  We will go along with option c) "trunk only", this will also help
  with later DSCM options.


Some asked, so I probably should explain it in a bit more detail what 
we mean with "trunk only" migration:

  - only history on the main development line (trunk) will be migrated,
thus no branches and tags
  - we'll migrate only files which are still active (nothing from
the CVS "Attic" directories)
  - binary files will be pruned to the last version
  - Localization files (*.sdf) will be pruned to the last version

Existing branches will be maintained in CVS. This includes the OOO300 
branch, on which OpenOffice.org 3.0 will be released.


Heiner



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] resyncs to invalid MWS - bug in EIS/cws tools? Mistake by EIS admins/privileged users?

[Martin Hollmichel]

I also already wondered about xsltfilter10, Kurt wanted to do some 
investigation on how this could happen,


Martin

Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi *,

several cws have been resynced to an invalid master milestone, namely
OOO300 line with m23, m28, m29 for example.
Those masters don't exist yet (We're at OOO300_m2 currently)

So who's at fault here? Admins who can set any arbitrary value
bypassing the checks, or are the checks broken by themselves?

from tinderbox' tag-list (which tinderbox gets from EIS via SOAP -
checking e.g.  pflin11 shows this data is matching that in EIS
web-UI):

xsltfilter10 : OOO300_m23 : cws_dev300_xsltfilter10 : beanshell
config_office external filter odk officecfg oovbaapi rhino scp2 solenv
swext wizards xalan : stax saxon
hrovista2 : OOO300_m28 : cws_bea300_hrovista2 : desktop extensions
fpicker sal sfx2 :
dba31a : OOO300_m28 : cws_dev300_dba31a : comphelper connectivity
dbaccess default_images filter forms framework offapi officecfg
reportdesign sc scp2 solenv svtools svx sw testautomation vcl wizards
xmloff :
pflin11 : OOO300_m29 : cws_dev300_pflin11 : basic sc :

How could this happen?
Will this continue to happen?

ciao
Christian

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project

[Martin Hollmichel]

Heiner,

will there be any additional tools or documentation necessary of will 
our cws tools will wrap this completly ?


Martin

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi,

an updated repository acording to 
(http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope) is 
avaiable via:


svn checkout svn://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/trunk
or
svn checkout svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ooo/trunk
for those who send me a ssh public key for the o3-build machine

Heiner

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

Hi Guido,

the migration is going nicely along. We do plan to migrate after the 
3.0 RC.


- We've got a box, a Sun Fire 4150 (8 cores, 64 GB RAM, no less). The
  URL will be svn.services.openoffice.org. An updated test repository
  will be on that machine RSN.
- We'll use Subversion 1.5.1, that is with the build in merge tracking
- The ESC council decided after some debate about the migration scope,
  aka how much history do we want
  (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope)
  We will go along with option c) "trunk only", this will also help
  with later DSCM options.

I'll keep you posted here.

Heiner

Guido Ostkamp wrote:

Hello,


State of the OOo SCM project


We plan to switch over to Subversion in the second half of July.


the second half of July is nearly over and I haven't heard any news 
regarding the final switch to SVN since that discussion in early June.


Is it going to happen?

Regards

Guido

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]










-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project

[Martin Hollmichel]

Guido Ostkamp wrote:

Hello,


State of the OOo SCM project


We plan to switch over to Subversion in the second half of July.


the second half of July is nearly over and I haven't heard any news 
regarding the final switch to SVN since that discussion in early June.


Is it going to happen?

In last ESC meeting 
(http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ESC_meeting_minutes_20080703#CVS_to_svn_migration:) 
is was agreed to schedule the migration after the release candidate of 
3.0, unfortunately we already slipped a bit with the 3.0 release so the 
migration will not happen in July.


On the other hand I also would be interested in the current status of 
the migration, is all well prepared, is there a staging server available 
for the repository, can we have a look in advance etc,

Regards

Guido


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Trouble building DEV300_m6: stops in filters

[Martin Hollmichel]

please see issue 87925 for this,

Martin

Giuseppe Castagno wrote:

Hi all,

I'm trying to build dev300_m6 on Linux Debian lenny.

It stops while building the module filter with:


Building packages others 
../../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/filters/fcfg_drawgraphics.others_flag

===
mkdir -p ../../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/filters/modulepacks
/usr/bin/java -jar ../../../unxlngi6.pro/class/FCFGMerge.jar 
fragmentsdir=. tempdir= 
outdir=../../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/filters/modulepacks 
pkg=../../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/filters/modulepacks/fcfg_drawgraphics_others.xcu 
xmlpackage=Misc lcfg=/tmp/mkChGJEV ccfg=/tmp/mkHwqd9T && touch 
../../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/filters/fcfg_drawgraphics.others_flag

3a4,30
 > 
 > fo:margin-left="10mm" fo:margin-right="10mm" fo:margin-top="10mm" 
fo:page-height="297.03mm" fo:page-width="209.9mm" 
style:print-orientation="portrait" style:writing-mode="lr-tb" >

 >
 > 

... a bunch of other xml like stuff and then ends with this:

 > 
 > 
 > svg:width="26.45mm" text:anchor-page-number="1" text:anchor-type="page" >

 > 
 > 
 >
...
 > 
 > 
 > 
dmake:  Error code 1, while making 
'../../../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/graphicformats_pdfi_unittest_writer_succeeded' 



ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while making 
/home/beppe/ooo-b/dev300-m6-std/build/current/filter/source/pdfimport/test/testdocs 



Java is 1.5, gcc is gcc (GCC) 4.2.3 (Debian 4.2.3-3)

Any idea?

Thanks




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Windows Compiler Versions

[Martin Hollmichel]

Martin Hollmichel wrote:


There are also the Windows (Platform SDK's, also available as free 
download)


* v5.0 ( just SDK header and Libraries)

* v6.0 comes additionally with the C/C++ Compiler 14.00.50727 for x86

* v6.1 comes addtionally with the C/C++ Compiler 15.00.20706 for x86, 
this one is the compiler also available with Visual Studio 9.0 Beta.


As for some feature for Windows Vista at least the SDK v6.0 is rquired, 
I would like to propose:


- after the creation of the OOH680 code line for 2.4 release, we switch 
from 2003 to 2005 Compiler as default for the Developer Snapshots on the 
SRC680 code line. If that seems to be feasible, drop the support of the 
2003 Compiler after 3.0 release.



Is there any need to continue the support of the older SDK's ?



Martin




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] overhaul the windows symbol->ordinal mapfile system (known as def-files)

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

Vladimir was speeking about an increase of 3M of the install set due to 
exported sysmbol, how much will this be once the Office got installed ?


Martin
Jörg Jahnke wrote:

Hi,

to elaborate a bit more: There were concerns that using symbols instead 
of ordinals might lead to a significant performance loss during startup. 
 Vladimir's performance measurements (see 
https://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.Attachment?cmd=read&Id=6381&Filename=performancetest%20[%2018.%20Feb%202008,%2013:35%20(Windows%20XP)%20]) 
indicate that we would lose less than 2% speed on startup. IMO this is 
acceptable and we should thus get rid of building with ordinals. Any 
objections?


Regards,

Jörg


Vladimir Glazounov schrieb:

Hi all,

because I investigated the case, I blogged about the theme here:
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/linking_office_libraries_for_win32
All comments are welcome.

Vladimir


Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi,

I just found at 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOo30_release_engineering_planned_changes 
that we plan to change the "export by ordinal" for windows. What is 
planned for OOo 3.0 ? Export by name or by alias ? Can you elaborate 
on this ? Is there an Issue or other documentation available ?


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] dmake errors on SRC680_m242

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I'm trying to compile m242 on cygwin "CYGWIN_NT-6.0 unten-vista 
1.5.25(0.156/4/2) 2007-12-14 19:21 i686 Cygwin" and getting these errors:


boost:
 7 [main] dmake 4216 _cygtls::handle_exceptions: Error while 
dumping state

(probably corrupted stack)

soltools:
 9 [sig] dmake 3300 
C:\cygwin\home\martin\o3-build\SRC680_m242\solenv\wntms

ci11\bin\dmake.exe: *** fatal error - called with threadlist_ix -1

any ideas about this ?

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOoSCM IRC Meeting, Minutes

[Martin Hollmichel]

Guido Ostkamp wrote:

Hello Jan,

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Yes, that's the plan.  But please note that all this is experimental, 
not for production use, etc. :-)


yeah, but I understood from the announcement that sources should be at 
state 2007-10-30 so that should be suitable to cover OOo 2.3.0 version 
and all earlier versions, correct?



yes,
And I also hope that sources are complete so that any covered version of 
OOo can be built from it right away, correct?



yes,

Regards

Guido


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOoSCM IRC Meeting, Minutes

[Martin Hollmichel]

Guido Ostkamp wrote:

Hello Jens,

Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
the SCM Migration Wiki page contains now additional instructions on 
how to replicate the SVN repository, for example as a local mirror.


can you or anyone else having access please let me know the size of the 
repository data?

about 55 GB,


 From the referenced pages in svnbook I believe it should be possible to 
continue an interrupted sync at a later time if one evening isn't enough 
to fetch it.



I expect it will last a few days ;-)

Regards

Guido


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Git / SVN Source code repositories

[Martin Hollmichel]

Guido Ostkamp wrote:


I also wonder why you are not looking at Mercurial yet 
(). It has been selected by a 
number of projects, e.g. OpenSolaris and Mozilla.


The concept how branches are implemented with Mercurial doesn't fit that 
 good in OpenOffice.org Developmemnt Model. Since OOo Feature 
Development  happens on branches in teams and thus branches should be 
shareable by all, Mercurial doesn't seems to be the natural choice since 
there branches are done in distributed manner.


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Git / SVN Source code repositories

[Martin Hollmichel]

Mathias Bauer wrote:

As it got silent regarding the SCM topic on this list, do you know whether 
all plans to replace the dreaded CVS by something better have been 
cancelled?


Nothing has been canceled, currently comparisons of different candidates
are carried out. See

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ESC_minutes#Face2Face_meeting_in_Hamburg_2007-10-29.2F30

There will be an follow up meeting this Friday 14.00 UTC on #oooscm on 
freenode for more detailed evaluation, please feel free to join,

Ciao,
Mathias


Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] overhaul the windows symbol->ordinal mapfile system (known as def-files)

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I just found at 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOo30_release_engineering_planned_changes 
that we plan to change the "export by ordinal" for windows. What is 
planned for OOo 3.0 ? Export by name or by alias ? Can you elaborate on 
this ? Is there an Issue or other documentation available ?


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] Windows Compiler Versions

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

currently I know of these Compilers working for the OpenOffice.org 
windows build:


* Microsoft Visual Studio .Net 2003 --- this is the current default 
compiler used for distributing the OpenOffice.org Windows build, it's a 
commercial version, you have to pay for.


* Microsoft Visual Studio 8 aka .Net 2005 --- there is also the Express 
version which is available as a "free" version. This compiler is 
supported by quite some time now as an supported compiler within the OOo 
build environment.


There are also the Windows (Platform SDK's, also available as free download)

* v5.0 ( just SDK header and Libraries)

* v6.0 comes additionally with the C/C++ Compiler 14.00.50727 for x86

* v6.1 comes addtionally with the C/C++ Compiler 15.00.20706 for x86, 
this one is the compiler also available with Visual Studio 9.0 Beta.


As for some feature for Windows Vista at least the SDK v6.0 is rquired, 
I would like to propose:


- after the creation of the OOH680 code line for 2.4 release, we switch 
from 2003 to 2005 Compiler as default for the Developer Snapshots on the 
SRC680 code line. If that seems to be feasible, drop the support of the 
2003 Compiler after 3.0 release.


- Stephan Bergmann is currently looking on the WaE (warning are errors) 
behavior of the 2005 compiler, but I expect that we also will get a "go" 
from him soon,


please reply to: dev@tools.openoffice.org

Martin



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOo source split

[Martin Hollmichel]

Laurent Godard wrote:

Hi Mathias, Hi Martin

just stumbled about that the report design extension is built during 
the regular build process, wouldn't it be better at all to create a 
source tarball include jfreereport and reportdesign modules. Where we 
already achieved modularization in the sources we should IHMO also do 
the right packaging of sources,


+1!

What already is separated shouldn't become munged with the rest. We know
how fast the separation can get lost. :-)


If an optional product, I would say yes

But if delivered  within OOo, the sources have to remain in CVS and then 
the packaging is easier if all done at build process
of course all sources need to stay in CVS and there should be one alias 
to checkout all sources including 3rdparty, extensions and all the other 
stuff. We're just talking about introducing additional modular packages 
to allow separate building and packaging.


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOo source split

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi Mathias,

On Friday 12 October 2007 20:18, Mathias Bauer wrote:


just stumbled about that the report design extension is built during the
regular build process, wouldn't it be better at all to create a source
tarball include jfreereport and reportdesign modules. Where we already
achieved modularization in the sources we should IHMO also do the right
packaging of sources,

+1!

What already is separated shouldn't become munged with the rest. We know
how fast the separation can get lost. :-)


I am a bit confused here - I thought that jfreereport was not JCA covered 
[though LGPL], so bundling it together was not what would you want on the 
source level?



yes, two packages would be required.
Either way, from my point of view it is plain 3rd party stuff, so I'd like to 
let it in ooo-libs-3rdparty.  To avoid reportdesign intergrowth with Base, 
maybe ooo-apps-extensions would be the better option for reportdesign, what 
do you think?
I don't understand why you want to create superbundles again, even if a 
more fine granular packaging is possible. Why should I care about 
jfreereport if I don't want to build any extension but just the core 
product ?


Regards,
Jan


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OOo source split

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

just stumbled about that the report design extension is built during the 
regular build process, wouldn't it be better at all to create a source 
tarball include jfreereport and reportdesign modules. Where we already 
achieved modularization in the sources we should IHMO also do the right 
packaging of sources,


Martin

Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi,

During the OOoCon, Petr had a presentation about the OOo package splitting.  
The most important part for a (Linux) package maintainer was to be able to 
build parts of OpenOffice.org separately; the thing is that with all the 
localizations, we are unable to get the build times under some 7 hours.  But 
the build could be done nicely in parallel (on the level of machines, not 
processors) if the sources were split correctly, with correct rpms and -devel 
rpms [of course, applies to debs as well ;-)].  And of course, the -noarch 
parts like the translations could be built just once for all architectures.


I propose the following split of the sources [the sizes are of the unpacked 
sources]:


75M ure
25M ooo-bootstrap
141Mooo-libs-core
101Mooo-libs-guitoolkit
142Mooo-libs-3rdparty
17M ooo-apps-base
28M ooo-apps-calc
38M ooo-apps-extensions
14M ooo-apps-chart
40M ooo-apps-impress
40M ooo-apps-writer
59M ooo-artwork
107Mooo-filters
888Mooo-l10n
48M ooo-sdk
72M ooo-testing
(1.8G   total)

(See below the content of these tarballs/archives).  I don't want the 
granularity to be too fine (we would get the modules we have now, but as 
separate packages), and OTOH the current 5 packages are too few.  The build 
order of these would be:


ooo-bootstrap
ooo-libs-3rdparty
ure
ooo-libs-guitoolkit
ooo-libs-core
[the rest in whatever sequence/in parallel]

This would tremendously decrease the learning curve for the new developers as 
well.  Imagine someone who wants to start hacking on Calc.  Instead of the 
monster 1.8G sources, he would have to handle 512MB.  Additionally, the goal 
of the modern Linux distros should be to get rid of the ooo-libs-3rdparty 
completely - it contains just stuff that is available from other sources 
anyway [-system stuff], and the distros have packages for them -, thus 
additional 142M down, doing it just 370M.  And that is much more pleasant, 
isn't it? ;-)


Of course, this is not finalized etc. - that's why I'm asking for comments.  
So far I was able to build in this order with few hacks, eg. scp2 should be 
split so that the file lists are local, the l10n part must be buildable 
separtately, etc.


So - what do you think? ;-)  ooo-l10n in the current proposal contains (in 
addition to the few modules) all the localize.sdf's - should we split this a 
bit as well?


Following is the proposal what I think belongs where:

= ure =

bridges
cli_ure
codemaker
cppu
cppuhelper
cpputools
idlc
io
javaunohelper
jurt
jut
jvmaccess
jvmfwk
offapi
offuh
pyuno
rdbmaker
registry
remotebridges
ridljar
sal
salhelper
stoc
store
udkapi
unoil
ure
xml2cmp

= ooo-apps-base =

dbaccess
reportdesign

= ooo-apps-calc =

sc

= ooo-apps-extensions =

accessibility
automation
basctl
bean
crashrep
embedserv
extensions
forms
javainstaller2
lingucomponent
MathMLDTD
package
setup_native
UnoControls
wizards
xmlsecurity

= ooo-apps-chart =

chart2

= ooo-apps-impress =

animations
sd
slideshow

= ooo-apps-writer =

starmath
sw

= ooo-artwork =

default_images
external_images
ooo_custom_images

= ooo-bootstrap =

config_office
dmake
instsetoo_native
postprocess
scp2
solenv
soltools
stlport

= ooo-filters =

binfilter
filter
hwpfilter
unoxml
writerfilter
writerperfect
xmerge

= ooo-libs-core =

avmedia
basic
configmgr
connectivity
desktop
embeddedobj
eventattacher
fileaccess
fpicker
framework
idl
linguistic
officecfg
oovbaapi
sandbox
scripting
sfx2
shell
sj2
so3
svx
sysui
ucb
uui
xmlhelp
xmloff
xmlscript
XmlSearch

= ooo-libs-guitoolkit =

basebmp
basegfx
canvas
comphelper
cppcanvas
dtrans
goodies
i18npool
i18nutil
o3tl
padmin
psprint
psprint_config
regexp
rsc
sax
scaddins
sot
svtools
toolkit
tools
transex3
ucbhelper
unotools
vcl
vos

= ooo-libs-3rdparty =

afms
agg
beanshell
berkeleydb
bitstream_vera_fonts
boost
curl
dictionaries
epm
expat
external
fondu
freetype
hsqldb
icu
jfreereport
jpeg
libegg
libtextcat
libwpd
libxml2
libxmlsec
libxslt
moz
msfontextract
nas
neon
np_sdk
portaudio
python
rhino
sane
sndfile
twain
unixODBC
vigra
xalan
xt
x11_extensions
zlib

= ooo-l10n =

extras
helpcontent2
readlicense_oo

= ooo-sdk =

autodoc
cosv
odk
sdk_oo
udm
unodevtools

= ooo-testing =

qadevOOo
smoketestoo_native
testshl2
testtools

Regards,
Jan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscr

Re: [tools-dev] OOo source split

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Eg. the spellchecker (hunspell) itself is in the lingucomponent which I 
propose to put to ooo-apps-extensions (and thus to ship it together with the 
application).  The dictionaries for it are in ooo-libs-3rdparty/dictionaries 
- the distros have their own packages, but it still must be possible to build 
with the internal ones.


I'd prefer to treat the dictionaries as an own package and not to bundle 
them in a "super-source-package" ooo-libs-3rdparty package again. If we 
have meaningful smallest possible packages we should go with them.

Regards,
Jan


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] source code analysis

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi Kay,

just found as information in other patch issue a reference to project 
which also is doing source code analysis: http://oopp.multiracio.com/


I think we probably should also list them in 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Other_Tools


Martin


Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi Kay,

I just stumbled about a patch of you where you mention your wiki page: 
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Architecture/Source_Code_Inventory> 
and a Axivion source code analyzer; can you tell us more about this 
project ?


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] source code analysis

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi Kay,

I just stumbled about a patch of you where you mention your wiki page: 
 
and a Axivion source code analyzer; can you tell us more about this 
project ?


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] o3-build: shipped cvs client doesn't work when updating existring tree (hangs)

[Martin Hollmichel]

Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi *,

cvs included with the o3-build iso does work well for checking out a
full milestone. (cvs ... co -r SRC680_m214 OpenOffice2), but it fails
badly when updating a cvs to some other tag.

(for i in ; do cvs ... update -dP -r  $i; done)

Some modules will be updated, but sooner or later (sooner is more
likely), cvs will just hang and won't continue.


hmm, I did now serveral runs (updating the tree to m215, m216, m217) 
with it, it works perfectly for me.


All done using anoncvs. The distro version of cvs (1.12.13 - the same
version as in o3-build) works fine however.

may it depends on the glibc system you use, I tested this on a glibc 
2.2.4 system, will try to test on a more modern glibc baseline later today,

ciao
Christian

Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] o3-build: X-libs not found when building bean, glib not found when building headless vcl-plugin

[Martin Hollmichel]

Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi *,

As mentioned in an earlier post, I'm trying out o3-build within a
minimal chroot install.

That chroot has no X11 installed, so it relies on the stuff o3-build
provides.

The build breaks at bean module, because checkdll cannot find various
X-libraries.

When trying to build m214, configure auto-enables the headless plugin,
but the build then fails in vcl because it cannot find libglib.

The wiki page mentions that the /o3/lx_ia32/lib must not be in
LD_LIBRARY_PATH and the LDFLAGS - and that seems to be the reason for
this breakage

As a workaround I symlinked the following libs to
solver/680/unxlngi6.pro/lib/:

/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libXp.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libXt.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libXext.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libXtst.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libX11.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libSM.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libICE.so.6
/o3/lx_ia32/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0

I'm not sure whether checkdll or the bean/vcl modules is at fault here.

If not, I suggest putting (symlinking) these libs to a workaround
libpath that can be added to LD_LIBRARY_PATH/LDFLAGS to avoid the need
for this workaround.

(taking the libraries from the system would be pointless, since the point
in using o3-build is to have a common build-environment that generates
the same instsets, no matter on what machine it was built)

Initially I had the assumption that the machine which is used for 
building has also all prerequisites installed required for running the 
binary finally. Gerd's try on ubuntu server already showed that this is 
not true at all, so I need to go the way to come also with a X11 
baseline. It will take a few days until I can provide an update, since 
my vmware images for SuSe73 crashed, I need to reconstruct my Suse73 
system first.

ciao
Christian


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] o3-build: GTK & gdk-pixbuf versions too old to build gtk-plugin

[Martin Hollmichel]

Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi *,

I continue to play around with o3-build and I think it is a pity that it
ships with gtk libs, but with a version too old to build the gtk-vcl
plugin.

Please add the required versions (gtk >= 2.4, gdk-pixbuf >= 2.2) to
o3-build

yes, this is a known issue, gtk >= 2.4 requires cairo which I don't 
managed to compile on that old baseline, I will add it on the to do 
list, but not with highest priority, I will try to fix the other stuff 
you reported first,

ciao
Christian

Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Re： [tools-dev] Build hang. ..

[Martin Hollmichel]

please have a look at

http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=51560
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72036

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Windows#Miscellaneous_info

hope that helps,

Martin


Classic Kai wrote:
> Recent stops at jurt module:
> /cygdrive/d/OO2.2.0/OOF680_m14/jurt/util
> dmake: Executing shell macro: -+ls -1 $(JARDIR) | $(GREP) "^$i"
> dmake: Executing shell macro: -+ls -1 $(JARDIR) | $(GREP) "^$i"
> dmake: Executing shell macro: +-test -d {$(subst,$/$(LANGDIR), 
> $(null,$(ZIP1DIR)
>  . $(ZIP1DIR)))}/ && find {$(subst,$/$(LANGDIR), $(null,$(ZIP1DIR) . 
> $(ZIP1DIR))
> )}/ -type d ! -name CVS ! -name "." | sed "s/\.\/\///" | sed "s/\.\///"
> 
> I check the task manger in Windows XP.  No application is using the CPU!  I 
> think 'sed' should be running, but it is not using any CPU time.
> 
> Previous stops at extras.  As a matter of fact, extras module has been build 
> already.  I am using dmake to let the build starts from beginning
> 
> Any idea?
> 
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have built OpenOffice from some versions of 1 to some versions of 2.  I 
>> stopped building since mid of last year.  Now I pick up again.
>>
>> From time to time when I build, I can see that the build process do not go 
>> from start to end.  I get a clean source.  I have set up everything and I do 
>> 'dmake'.  It goes to certain point.  Then it just hang.  I stop it.  I open 
>> another cygwin windows.  Then I do a 'build' on that particular module.  
>> Sometime it builds.  Sometime it hangs again.
>>
>> I sometime close other applications.  Start another cygwin Windows and build 
>> again.  Sometime it goes.
>>
>> I want to ask u out there.  Have you seen this before?  Are you able to 
>> build from start to end without stopping/hanging?
>>
>> Here is the detail:
>> Windows XP SP2
>> OO2.2.0 with CVS tag as OOF680_m14
>> Apache-ant-1.7.0
>> Java  j2sdk1.4.2_11
>> Visual Studio .NET 2003 version
>> Platform SDK 2003 Summer version
>> Direct X 9.0 SDK
>> Cygwin 
>> Get Mozilla Prebuild libraries
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   現在你可輕易阻擋垃圾郵件，立即使用Yahoo! Mail你就會相信!
>>
>>
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   現在你可輕易阻擋垃圾郵件，立即使用Yahoo! Mail你就會相信!
> 
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] o3-build: Please provide multiple tarballs instead of an iso

[Martin Hollmichel]

Christian Lohmaier wrote:

sorry for the late answer, I somehow missed this posting.

Hi *,

I tried to test o3-build last week and hit several problems (other
postings will follow).

The first thing that kind of surprised me is how it is distributed. It
is offered as an iso-download. I think this is rather suboptimal, and
tar.gz/bz2 would be better.

For one reason, you can really only use it when you use loopback mount -
building from a real optical drive surely is not recommended or
advisable.

yes, no problem to do that.


Another problem that arose is that you need to be root to use it as iso.
* o3build hardwires the /o3 location - it doesn't work when used from
  another location, and regular users mustn't mount to a random
  location, let alone creating files or directories in / 
  While I hope this limitation will sometime vanish, the other problems

  still stay true.
dynamic linking with other than the default runtime libraries is 
somewhat tricky, so having the hardwired /o3 path was one solution that 
finally worked out. Indeed it would be a major step forward to have this 
on a random location.

* loopback mount is only allowed for root in most default configs
* many configurations disallow execution of files from a user-mountable
  device

So to use o3-build, one has to extract it. Copying from a tarball or
using some tools like mc have the problems, that the permissions are
often not set correctly (i.e. all files without executable flag) and
that causes extra work.

will be fixed with next version.


Another reason why I'd like to see seperate tarballs is that the iso
does not only contain the core build-environment (and that for two
Windows as well as Linux), but as well optional
things like
* OOo sources
* "installed" OOo and SDK
* jdk
* ant

that could be easily provided as seperate downloads and just extracted
along the core. 

yes, this also could be done.
(I doubt that these were specially prepared for

o3-build)

source a copied from the regular download without any modifications.


So: Please provide seperate tarballs instead of an iso.


points taken, will do, at list as tar ball in the next step.

ciao
Christian

thanks for the feedback,

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] problems on building on Windows XP, need your help.

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

from what I read from your output is that starview.hid should be present
in -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solenv\inc but cannot be found as you stated.

I have no real clue about this, but I would

1. set the TMP/TEMP variable to something like c:\tmp to shorten the
pathname to something more simple. This often helps.

2. most developers are not using 4nt for their build, have you checked
this in a pure cygwin environment also ?

I cc'ed Gregor, who should be the expert for the hid-lists, I hope he
can help you,

Martin

Canghua Qu wrote:
> Hi, All,
> 
>I am Cynthia Qu, a developer of Bei Jing Redflag CH2000 Software Co., Ltd. 
> You can call me Cynthia for short.
>I have found opensource is a miracle.It is exciting for a programmer. As 
> my colleagues and I are trying to do our best to contribut to OpenOffice.org, 
> I believe, we will do much better on it. 
> 
>I am working on AutoTest Tools recently, and my duty is creating a hid.lst 
> of our own(as we have some changes on UI). But I am blocked when I am trying 
> to build ooo_OOE680 on Windows XP.
>   
>I have two questions on building:
> 
> Q 1: The error" fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 
> 'starview.hid': No such file or directory ", while I can find the file 
> "starview.hid" in  solenv\inc, and it actually setted: 
> "-Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solenv\inc ". What's the problem? 
> 
> The environment I am in:
> 1.OS: Windows XP
> 2.February 2003 SDK 
> 3.Microsoft? DirectX? 9.0 SDK Update (Summer 2004)
> 4.4NT v4.00 
> 5.ConvertDSW
> 6.j2sdk1.4.2_06
> 7.Cygwin (installed all)
> 8.ant
> 9.VCToolkit 
> 
> The actions I have done:
> 1.download the source OOE680
> 2.Have the files gpc.c and gpc.h in ooo_OOE680_m6_src\external\gpc.
> 4.Put dbghelp.dll from microsoft into  ooo_OOE680_m6_src\external\dbghelp
> 5.Put unicows.dll into ooo_OOE680_m6_src\external\unicows
> 6.Mozilla libraries: 
> 1)copied it into ooo_OOE680_m6_src\moz\download
> 2)Placed WNTMSCI{inc,lib,runtile}.zip into ooo_OOE680_m6_src\moz\zipped
> 7.In ooo_OOE680_m6_src\config_office, I have created a file: run4nt.bat,
>  The content is:
> **
> bash ./configure --with-cl-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Visual 
> Studio .NET 
> 
> 2003/Vc7" 
> --with-jdk-home=/cygdrive/d/OOEnv/j2sdk1.4.2_06 
> --with-asm-home="/cygdrive/c/Program 
> 
> Files/Microsoft Visual 
> Studio .NET 2003/Vc7/bin" --with-frame-home="/cygdrive/c/Program 
> Files/Microsoft Visual 
> 
> Studio .NET 
> 2003/SDK/v1.1" --with-wdevenv-path="/cygdrive/d/OOEnv/ConvertDSWSetup" 
> --with-ant-
> 
> home=/cygdrive/d/OOEnv/ant 
> --with-psdk-home=/cygdrive/d/OOEnv/PSDK --with-csc-
> 
> path=/cygdrive/c/WINNT/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v1.1.4322  
> --disable-build-mozilla --with-unzip-home=/cygdrive/d/OOEnv/unzip 
> --with-use-shell=4nt 
> 
> --with-lang="zh-CN"
> 
> 8.changed line in rules.mk via ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solenv\inc  under :
> ***
>   # generate hid files
>   $(SRS)$/%.hid : %.src
> ***
> from: +$(PERL) $(SOLARENV)$/bin$/mhids.pl $*.src $(SRS) $(PRJNAME) 
> $(CDEFS) 
> 
> $(INCLUDE)
> To: +$(WRAPCMD) $(PERL) $(SOLARENV)$/bin$/mhids.pl $*.src $(SRS) 
> $(PRJNAME) $(CDEFS) 
> 
> $(INCLUDE)
> 9.run "run4nt.bat" in cygwin. and then it automatically created files 
> winenv.bat ,etc.
> 10.run "winenv.bat " in 4NT
> 11.command "dmake"
>
> It works well in building until build the modle "wizards". 
> The error information is : 
> **
>  HID-Compiler 1.6 OG
> 
> cl  -DWNT -DWNT -DNT351 -DMSC -DM1310 -DINTEL -D_X86_=1 -DFULL_DESK 
> -DSTLPORT_VE
> RSION=400 -DWINVER=0x400 -D_WIN32_IE=0x400 -D_MT -DCPPU_ENV=msci -DSUPD=680 
> -DPR
> ODUCT -DNDEBUG -DPRODUCT_FULL -DOSL_DEBUG_LEVEL=0 -DOPTIMIZE -DEXCEPTIONS_OFF 
> -D
> CUI -DSOLAR_JAVA -DOOE680=OOE680 -I. -I..\..\wntmsci10.pro\inc\euro -I..\inc 
> -I.
> .\..\inc\pch -I..\..\inc -I..\..\WIN\inc -I..\..\wntmsci10.pro\inc -I. 
> -Ie:\ooo_
> OOE680_m6_src\solver\680\wntmsci10.pro\inc\stl 
> -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solver\680
> \wntmsci10.pro\inc\external 
> -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solver\680\wntmsci10.pro\inc
> -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solenv\wntmsci10\inc -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solenv\inc 
> -I
> e:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\res 
> -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solver\680\wntmsci10.pro\inc\stl
>  -Id:\OOEnv\J2SDK1~1.2_0\include\win32 -Id:\OOEnv\J2SDK1~1.2_0\include 
> -Id:\OOEn
> v\PSDK\include -Ic:\progra~1\micros~1.net\vc7\include 
> -Id:\OOEnv\directx\include
>  -Ie:\ooo_OOE680_m6_src\solver\680\wntmsci10.pro\inc\offuh -I. -I..\..\res 
> -I. -
> EP \cygdrive\c\DOCUME~1\QUCANG~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\euro_1372.c1  > 
> \cygdrive\c\DOCUME
> ~1\QUCANG~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\euro_1372.c2
> Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.10.3077 for 80x86
> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1984-2002. All rights reserved.
> 
> cygdrivecDOCUME~1

Re: [tools-dev] testing o3build on rsync2.services.openoffice.org

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I opened a tools/contrib/o3-build directory in CVS 
(<http://tools.openoffice.org/source/browse/tools/contrib/o3-build/>), 
please feel free to add enhancements for scripts and documentation.


Martin

Gerd Weiss - Sun Germany - ham02 -Sys Admin wrote:

Hello Martin,

After adding xauth, xserver-xorg-core (ssh X11 forward) and use settings 
below I could run smoketest without any problems.


export PGKFORMAT="rpm"
export TEMP=~/tmp

http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76951

cheers Gerd

Weiss - Sun Germany - ham02 -Sys Admin wrote:

Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi Gerd,

you provided me a login on rsync2.services.openoffice.org for testing 
the o3-build.


The build breaks in beans, due to a missing libXt.so X11 library. 
What kind of debian system is this ? 

Ubuntu Server 6.06 LTS

Does anybody know which packages we need
to install ? Some of the X11 libraries are present in /usr/lib but 
not all I expected for o3build.




May that's all?
libice-dev libice6 libsm-dev libsm6 libx11-dev libxau-dev libxdmcp-dev
  libxdmcp6 libxt-dev libxt6 x11proto-core-dev x11proto-input-dev
  x11proto-kb-dev

after installing a build run without noticeable errors.

Because of an bug at smoketest i installed also rpm. Kurt is 
investigating that issue.


Further on i'm investigating  smoketest.

Cheers
  Gerd


I'm wondering - if OpenOffice.org runs at all on this box - if 
linking with Xt is required at all ?






Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] testing o3build on rsync2.services.openoffice.org

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi Gerd,

you provided me a login on rsync2.services.openoffice.org for testing 
the o3-build.


The build breaks in beans, due to a missing libXt.so X11 library. What 
kind of debian system is this ? Does anybody know which packages we need 
to install ? Some of the X11 libraries are present in /usr/lib but not 
all I expected for o3build.


I'm wondering - if OpenOffice.org runs at all on this box - if linking 
with Xt is required at all ?


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Re: [releases] git: Version control system for OOo?

[Martin Hollmichel]

Indeed, I'm a bit concerned that moving to subversion will make us
suffer from the 'good enough' syndrome. But I can clearly live with
that, if we agree that it's an interim solution (and given that svn
tooling for CWS is almost done - if we need to invest half a year to
have that running, we could as well move to DSCM).
I would not like to declare subversion as a interim solution, this 
sounds like being not good enough. I think we can agree on: "We are 
continuously for the best solutions for developing OpenOffice.org".


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Re: [releases] git: Version control system for OOo?

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I had a lot of interesting discussion about various distributed SCM and 
subversion in the meantime. For me it looks the discussion and evalution 
of distributed SCM needs some more time than just a month because the 
use of such a system also can improve or at least change our development 
processes. I also have the impression that both subversion and a DSCM 
(git, mercurial) can serve our needs.


The situation looks like this:

We will have next week an infrastructure available where we have the 
possibility to do the transition from CVS to subversion. The subversion 
tool chain seem to be mature (support for all our main development 
platforms), it has been tested on all these platforms also with firewall 
restrictions (a test protocol matrix with benchmarks should be available 
soon). A transition to subversion would address our biggest pain: branch 
creation.


A switch to DSCM is the bigger and a promising step: enhancements of our 
development model and style look possible, I can't list all aspects now. 
But a transition to a DSCM seems to need more preparation and 
development: we need to review and maybe redesign our processes, we need 
a more mature system with support for all major platforms, need to think 
about additional infrastructure and more things.


So I would like to suggest the following:
Evaluate the effort for a transition to subversion first, Heiner already 
did some preparations for this. If this efforts seems to be reasonable 
low, do the transition from CVS to subversion first in the next few months.
As a second step or in parallel keep the evaluation for alternative SCM 
open, lets use face-to-face meetings on next OOoCon for a more in depth 
discussion about the future developments in our process. I guess some of 
you may think that with a transition from CVS to subversion this 
discussion might be dead, but I definitely don't think so. The 
opportunities we have with a modern SCM are to much to get ignored but 
we need some time for such thought which I don't want to let get passed 
by by sitting on our old CVS.


Martin

Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi,


I'm looking forward to play around with a git OpenOffice.org repository.

Heiner

since we are considering a new SCM for quite a while now I suggest to 
set up a wiki page for gathering all the requirements we have and the 
pro and cons for the single implementations.


IMHO the goal should be that we upgrade our SCM this year (or decide to 
stay with CVS for longer time), but our decision should be traceable.


I could imagine such a timeline:

until Feb 15th: collect data and arguments.
until Feb 22th: come to an decision which SCM to use. Determine which 
infrastructure could be used.


I then expect a ca. 3 month time frame (+- 2month from what Heiner 
estimated ) to prepare the actual transition. So we would then around 
June in the situation to review the status and decide about the plan 
when and how to do the transition.


sorry for putting some pressure on this topic but we all feel the pain 
we currently have with CVS.


Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] [OT] Re: [tools-dev] using a distributed SCM cross corporate networks

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi Martin,

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 15:48, Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Some of the clones might be public, eg. ooo-build.

if people agree on a push back, only some of the clones needs to be
public, if this should be a pull back public access gets a problem.

so right now it is no problem to access a cws which has not been
integrated yet and can e.g. do something like tinderbox builds on it.
The other way round hides all development behind corperate firewalls. Is
this something we really want to do ?


I'm not sure that I understand you...  CWS is not visible until the developer 
does 'cvs commit', the git branch is not visible until the developer does 
'git push' to the public repository.  What is the difference?


In CVS it is just one step to publish: "cvs commit", if I understand git 
right, this is two step process: "commit and push", I'm just wondering 
how much "delayed code drop" events we will get with this process.

Esspecially if you think of some staggered development practices.

Regards,
Jan


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] [OT] Re: [tools-dev] using a distributed SCM cross corporate networks

[Martin Hollmichel]

Some of the clones might be public, eg. ooo-build.
if people agree on a push back, only some of the clones needs to be 
public, if this should be a pull back public access gets a problem.


so right now it is no problem to access a cws which has not been 
integrated yet and can e.g. do something like tinderbox builds on it.
The other way round hides all development behind corperate firewalls. Is 
this something we really want to do ?



Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] using a distributed SCM cross corporate networks

[Martin Hollmichel]

Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Jan Holesovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Should I enable http:// access to go-oo.org/git?


Dunno what went wrong for Martin - I was able to clone your repo from
within Sun.


which platform did you use, I was trying on Windows,

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] using a distributed SCM cross corporate networks

[Martin Hollmichel]

Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi Martin,

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 11:12, Rene Engelhard wrote:


I wondered then at all if a distributed SCM makes sense at all if many
developers are located in corporate networks, so access to distributed
repositories might be difficult or need extra infrastructure. Are there

Depends on how the distributed SCM does work (I don't know how git
works). If it's able to work over ssh or http (as baz/br, but those
are awfully slow with big things) there shouldn't be a problem, as ssh
and http should be allowed for outgoing


Should I enable http:// access to go-oo.org/git?
this might ease things a bit, but nonetheless if I want to give you 
access to my repository, I need to set up a repository which can be 
access outside the corporate network,


Regards,
Jan


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] using a distributed SCM cross corporate networks

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I just stumbled about how to use git in our corporate network (tried 
freecap on Windows) and failed.
I wondered then at all if a distributed SCM makes sense at all if many 
developers are located in corporate networks, so access to distributed 
repositories might be difficult or need extra infrastructure. Are there 
already any thoughts on that ?


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Some data about the git tree...

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

Jan Holesovsky wrote:

Hi,

I've updated the http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Git page, mainly the 
times of checkout/merge/etc.


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Git#Comparison
Thank you for the comparision. I think some rows in the table need some 
more explanation (e.g. which are the 3rd party modules, which commands 
actually have been used, etc.) and me be one can think of some missing 
items (resync, integration)




I'll try to collect the data at least for CVS as well.

Will you still do or should we look for some other volunteers ?





Regards,
Jan


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Re: [releases] git: Version control system for OOo?

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,


I'm looking forward to play around with a git OpenOffice.org repository.

Heiner

since we are considering a new SCM for quite a while now I suggest to 
set up a wiki page for gathering all the requirements we have and the 
pro and cons for the single implementations.


IMHO the goal should be that we upgrade our SCM this year (or decide to 
stay with CVS for longer time), but our decision should be traceable.


I could imagine such a timeline:

until Feb 15th: collect data and arguments.
until Feb 22th: come to an decision which SCM to use. Determine which 
infrastructure could be used.


I then expect a ca. 3 month time frame (+- 2month from what Heiner 
estimated ) to prepare the actual transition. So we would then around 
June in the situation to review the status and decide about the plan 
when and how to do the transition.


sorry for putting some pressure on this topic but we all feel the pain 
we currently have with CVS.


Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] Re: [qa-dev] status of o3-build iso image

[Martin Hollmichel]

Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:27 PM
>> The next major steps for this project are:
>>
>> * make it also possible for the Windows platform
> 
> That would be just great!!
This will be not so easy as on Linux because we can't redistribute all
of the Microsoft stuff. But I'm quite confident that we can ease the pain ;)
>
Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] [qa-dev] status of o3-build iso image

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I uploaded a few days ago the last version of the o3-build iso image.
purpose of that image is to have an common preconfigure build
environment. This Environment contains:

* all prerequisites needed for a Linux build
* the install set produced by that build should run on almost all Linux
distros and will be accepted as cws builds by QA folks.


For further information please see
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/O3-build.

Right now this build have been tested with a vanilla debian, ubuntu 6.06
OpenSuse 10.1 and Suse 7.3 system, so I'm quite confident that it will
also work on many other systems. Problems might occur with some
"Linux-from-scatch"-distros, please report if there are any issues left.

Please find the latest iso-image here:
http://ooo.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/cws/upload/o3/
be warned, the image is quite huge (~900 MB). There is also an install
set available which was create with this image, some Sun QA folks will
have a look at this and tell us if it is acceptable also for their machine.

I would be glad if some more people join this project, especially help
with scripting and documentation skills would be great to make the whole
stuff "idiot proofed" ;) .

The next major steps for this project are:

* make it also possible for the Windows platform
* include all the API documentation
* include also the Netbeans-Integration stuff

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] 2.0.4 one install RPM

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

Vitor Domingos wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is there any way to build only on RPM for the Linux install, rather than the 
> multiple rpms and desktop-integration ? This has been a glitch on linux 
> installations.
I think you mean "one" rpm instead of having a whole bunch of them ?
AFAIK this is not possible, what kind of "a glitch" do you mean ?
> 
> Thanks.
Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Building 2.0.3 on Linux: stlport fails

[Martin Hollmichel]

>>
>> Is there a recommended binutils version if I would like to have the
>> option to choose between both compiler versions. Or might it be a better
>> idea to configure the compiler with a specific binutils version ?
> 
> It's always a good idea to configure gcc to the specific binutils you
> plan to choose. Gcc is known to adapt itself to the features of the used
> linker and assembler, as I found out the hard way some time ago.
> Actually any more or less recent binutils are fine, as long as they
> support the "hide symbols" feature.
with that explanation I would expect the combination gcc-3.4.1 and
binutils-2.17 working,

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Building 2.0.3 on Linux: stlport fails

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I'm playing a similar game with a preconfigured environment
(http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/O3-build) and have the same
problem with g++-3.4.1 and binutils-2.17 and no problem with g++-4.1.1
and binutils-2.17.

Is there a recommended binutils version if I would like to have the
option to choose between both compiler versions. Or might it be a better
idea to configure the compiler with a specific binutils version ?

Martin

Simon Brouwer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Update:
> 
> I think I encountered this problem because I was "playing safe", at
> configuration specifying gcc and g++ version 3.3 because the build guide
> reported success with those. However, these may not be compatible with
> the (newer?) binutils 2.16.1 on my Ubuntu installation. I am building
> with the default gcc/g++ 4.0 now and so far it looks good.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am trying to build OOo 2.0.3 on the latest Ubuntu. Configure went OK,
>> but the build stops in stlport.
>>
>> The last output is:
>> cd ./unxlngi4.pro/misc/build/STLport-4.5/src && make -f gcc-3.0.mak
>> -j1 &&
>> touch so_built_so_stlport
>> /usr/bin/g++-3.3 -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN' --fexceptions -shared -o
>> ../lib/libstlport_gcc.so.4.5  ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/dll_main.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/fstream.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/strstream.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/sstream.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/ios.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/streambuf.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/stdio_streambuf.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/istream.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/ostream.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/iostream.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/codecvt.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/collate.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/ctype.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/monetary.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/num_get.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/num_put.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/num_get_float.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/num_put_float.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/numpunct.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/time_facets.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/messages.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_catalog.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/facets_byname.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/c_locale.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/c_locale_stub.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/complex.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/complex_exp.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/complex_io.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/complex_trig.o
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/complex_io_w.o ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/string_w.o
>> `.L5217' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIwNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIwNS_11char_traitsIwE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIwS3_NS_9allocatorIw'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L5275' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIwNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIwNS_11char_traitsIwE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIwS3_NS_9allocatorIw'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L5338' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIwNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIwNS_11char_traitsIwE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIwS3_NS_9allocatorIw'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L5402' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIwNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIwNS_11char_traitsIwE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIwS3_NS_9allocatorIw'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L5492' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIwNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIwNS_11char_traitsIwE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIwS3_NS_9allocatorIw'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L7586' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIcNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIcNS_11char_traitsIcE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIcS3_NS_9allocatorIc'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L7654' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIcNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIcNS_11char_traitsIcE6do_getES4_S4_bRNS_8ios_baseERiRNS_12basic_stringIcS3_NS_9allocatorIc'
>>
>> of ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o
>> `.L7729' referenced in section `.rodata' of
>> ../lib/obj/GCC/ReleaseD/locale_impl.o: defined in discarded section
>> `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4_STL9money_getIcNS_19istreambuf_iteratorIcNS_11char_traitsIcEE

Re: [tools-dev] meeting minutes: build environment 2006-08-24

[Martin Hollmichel]

Martin Hollmichel wrote:
participants: Ause, Kai Backmann, Michael Bemmer, Stephan Bergmann, Nils 
Fuhrmann,  Martin Hollmichel, Matthias Huetsch, Heiner Rechtien, Juergen 
Schmidt.

Joerg Jahnke and Malte Timmermann also participated in that meeting,

...

sorry for that,

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] meeting minutes: build environment 2006-08-24

[Martin Hollmichel]

participants: Ause, Kai Backmann, Michael Bemmer, Stephan Bergmann, Nils 
Fuhrmann,  Martin Hollmichel, Matthias Huetsch, Heiner Rechtien, Juergen 
Schmidt.


Kai B. provided some information about his investigation in the OOo 
build System. The main thesis he presented was that the overall build 
time of OOo is too high at this moment and that we need to reduce this 
time to attract more developers to step into OOo build.


Michael Bemmer pointed out, that there is an agreement that lowering the 
barriers of entrance for contributing code to OOo is in very important 
topic for the project.


Kai B. presented his analysis that about
33 % of overall build time is compiling C/C++ Files
27 % of the build time is needed by dmake/build tools
22 % of the time is needed for generating files dependencies.

concentrating efforts for improvement to build system, especially wrt 
dependencies might have best results. Kai gave an introduction into jam 
 which is an build tool which handles dependencies quite efficient. He 
also presented performance data about his jam build protoype for OOo 
which looked quite promising.


additional technics like the usage of precompiled header files  and 
batched compiling for several C++ files at once gives addtional speed up 
so that an build e.g. for Calc gives a speedup of more than factor 2.


ause and Heiner argued that the configuration of the build environment 
could be tweaked at some places, so that the usage of dmake will lead to 
better results (technical details will be discussed on 
dev@tools.openoffice.org).


next steps:

* validations of the hot spots of the build system with different 
configuration of build environment and other optimizations; Kai will 
provide the modified tools for measuring this.


* analysis of "why is mozilla compiling each line of code about four 
times faster than OOo ?"


* review and feedback of jam prototype by Ause

* Martin H. will set up follow up meeting right after OOo conference.

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] --enable-werror

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

I just compiled a new gdb-6.5 on a Suse 7.3 system, and found "treat 
warnings as errors" enabled.


the warning was: stdlib.h: warning: '__malloc__' attribute ignored

I'm wondering what the actual status in the OpenOffice.org build is, are 
working all compilers on all platforms fine with the treatment of warnings ?


Don't get me wrong, I strongly support the warning = error idea, but for 
users on strange platform the switch --disable-werror might lowering the 
barrier to compile of OpenOffice.org,


Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] OS/2 window size and positioning coordinates

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

for questions about the windowing system layer you should ask on 
dev@gsl.openoffice.org,


Martin

Yuri Dario wrote:

Hi,

still on the OS2 port, I have an open issue with native window sizing
and positioning.

When a window is moved using Os2SalFrame::SetPosSize, it seems to me
that new position is expressed relative to the parent window, not to
the screen coordinates.
I found this for example for combo boxes, because the listbox was shown
in a total wrong position.

But also for sizing I have a problem: when I click a menu item, instead
of showing a dropdown list of items, I see two arrows, like if the
available space is not enough to show all the menu.
Also here I think there is an error in coordinate system, but I still
have to identify it.

Since these errrors seems to be related, I'd like to read something
about how the OOo windowing system is working. Is there a such
document?

Otherwise more help is needed :-)

TIA,


Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
 * member of TeamOS/2 - Italy
 * http://www.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.teamos2.it
 */

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[tools-dev] new build prerequisite for windows in cws native46

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

in the windows build of native46 cws the gdiplus.dll will be introduced 
as a prerequisite for packaging OOo. I updateed 
http://tools.openoffice.org/dev_docs/build_windows_tcsh.html with the 
information on how to obtain this.  Is anybody to validate the build 
configuration before integrationg native46,


thanks,

Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [tools-dev] Code analysis Module contribution

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi,

thank you for your application. Any contribution to the OpenOffice.org 
codebase, which makes the source more flexible, maintainable or more 
extensible are definitely welcome.


Can you please describe what your first steps will be and how we can 
help you. Please also have a look on 
http://contributing.openoffice.org/programming.html for details on how 
to contribute to the project. Please alsp have a look to 
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf to make work via CVS and cws 
possible.


I'm looking forward to your contributions,

Martin

Mohammed Mamdouh wrote:

Team member names
1- Teacher Assistant.Hani Samir
2- Mohamed mamdouh Kamel
3- Ramez gbriel Michelle
 
 
Email

1-  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
2-  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

project Title
Code Analyisis
 
*We are kindly asking for*
Assigning this module to us or joining or team to the team working on it 
if exists


Synopsis
Keeping the code flexible, maintainable, extensible, is highly 
desired,as the Module describtion said sowe intend to develop a CWS that 
can be used by openOffice.org developpers to detect areas of code that 
doesn't satisfy desired quality of code flecibility, 
maintainablity,extensiblity and satisfy organization standards for code 
production
 
Benefits to the openOffice Community
Such a tool when used will ensure code compatibility with standards of 
Openoffice.org , increase reliability of code and decrease time of code 
testing and QA  phases at some points related to code, As well this tool 
can be used generally as an open source tool for free code errors or 
quality assurance for later projects


Project Details
1- Increasing reliability of code submitted to the project
2- Decrease QA phases at some points that takes alot of time
3- Increase production speed for the project

Project Schedule
How long will the project take?
Time estimation still not final but rough estimation for 4 Months more 
or less
 
 When can you begin work?

 As fast as we get acceptance for working on the Module
 
*Benifits for our team*

1- high experience in reverse Engineering
2- Experience in open source projects
3- This project can be a part of our graduation project

Bio
we are undergradute students in Faculty of computers and Information, 
Computer science Department, Cairo University in Egypt , we Have More 
than three years of Experience in the following :
 
* Java  (proffetional)

* C++  (Expert)
* Datastructures (Expert)
* FileStructures(proffetional)
* Software Engineering   (Proffetional)
* Artifitial Intelegence (Intermediate)
* prolog   (Intermediate)
* Assembly (proffetional)
* Database  Design   (Expert)
* Computer organization and Architecture(Intermediate)
* Computer Graphics  (fair)
* GUI Via Java (Expert)
* web programming  via ASP.NET and JSP   (Proffetional)
* Networking (proffetional)
* SQL server
 
 
Note : this is not our first E-Mail but we are willing to contribute
 
thanks in advance

your concern will be highly appretiated
 
- To 
unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional 
commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]