Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 12/02/2016 4:10 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: IIRC, it uses 2.067 and will continue to do so until GDC and LDC have switched to using the D version of the frontend instead of the older, C++ version. Most likely we will stick with 2.067 until GDC and LDC both have 2.068 releases. There are a couple bugs in 2.067 that affect building DMD, but using it as a host compiler has been fairly painless so far and I don't think there's any huge motivation to bump it up.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/2016 11:18 PM, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 05:52 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On 2/10/2016 6:07 PM, Etienne wrote: It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. These are opportunities to improve things. If you could issue PRs to improve the documentation at the pain points, it'll help the next traveler. Or at least open a bugzilla issue for it. Documentation is only one part of problem. Improving any part of the problem is good progress.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 11/02/2016 3:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: It's also a pain to edit. It's been suggested several times that we change the build system (e.g. to use https://github.com/atilaneves/reggae), but IIRC, Walter and Andrei have generally been opposed to the idea of changing it. It's one of those things that frequent contributors have more or less sorted out and don't usually worry about much anymore (aside perhaps from the rare occasions when they need to edit the makefiles), whereas it definitely tends to bite folks who aren't familiar with it. And building the documentation is that much worse. Personally, I'd love to see it changed to something more maintainable, but we'd have to be sure that what we were switching to really was better. As it is, I wrote a program that I use to update the source and do builds on my machine so that building is semi-sane, and I suspect that other contributors have done similar. There is a non-zero possibility that we'll switch to dub eventually.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 10:55:12 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: Is there a practical reason why they are not in the same repo? No, other than trying to put them into one would grind everything to a halt for a while and would probably cost us more than we'd win. (All pull requests would need to be recreated, for one, and a lot of tools will break.)
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/11/16 9:08 AM, Atila Neves wrote: I'm still not 100% sure what I need to do to build the docs Does http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Fetch_and_build_dlang.org help? -- Andrei
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:49:35 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: Digger can do it in one command too, without any changes in the current build process. Yeah, digger is pretty cool. Does your command also build the PDF, CHM and eBook? No, I see negative value in supporting these formats as part of the build and dropped them entirely.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 05:02:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:37:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And building the documentation is that much worse. I'm fixing that at least! My docs: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.html are built with a single simple command: docs path/to/phobos done. No need to install several repos of crap. at the beginning i was opposing having alternative docs somewhere else but i get to like it. when reading phobos source number of wtfs i say is reducing with the help of your docs. thanks adam.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 05:02:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:37:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And building the documentation is that much worse. I'm fixing that at least! My docs: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.html are built with a single simple command: docs path/to/phobos done. No need to install several repos of crap. Digger can do it in one command too, without any changes in the current build process. Does your command also build the PDF, CHM and eBook?
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 07:23:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:57:39 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 01:20 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): IMO it is a denial of reality to put them in three separate repositories since they are so strongly coupled in practice - their makefiles reference each other! Yes, this is the main reason why I does not do dmd and druntime development much often. I really hate when I try to bisect regressions. That's what digger is for: https://github.com/CyberShadow/Digger But yes, having everything in one repo would make some things easier. - Jonathan M Davis Is there a practical reason why they are not in the same repo? It seems only logical to me that you'd grab everything at once since since they are always in sync anyways... Thanks for the help guys! I will give it another spin when I have an opportunity again. Meanwhile would be good to add a little note to the makefiles warning about this. Perhaps at the end of a build it could issue this a warning saying: "Note you need to build Phobos as well!"
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
Dne 11.2.2016 v 09:44 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On 2/10/2016 11:18 PM, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 05:52 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On 2/10/2016 6:07 PM, Etienne wrote: It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. These are opportunities to improve things. If you could issue PRs to improve the documentation at the pain points, it'll help the next traveler. Or at least open a bugzilla issue for it. Documentation is only one part of problem. Improving any part of the problem is good progress. Yes, I agree :)
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 12:08:53 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:47:23 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 10:55:12 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: Is there a practical reason why they are not in the same repo? No, other than trying to put them into one would grind everything to a halt for a while and would probably cost us more than we'd win. (All pull requests would need to be recreated, for one, and a lot of tools will break.) Would at having them as submodules of dmd ease everything? They could be separate repos, but the makefiles would try to find them in the submodule location and if there, great, otherwise, keep business. The makefiles already assume that all components are cloned in one repository (but this can be overridden with make variables). On a separate topic: are the official DMD releases compiled with the previous version of DMD or GDC? How does that work? Yes, with a previous DMD version. IIRC, there is a makefile target which downloads an older DMD, if necessary.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:47:23 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 10:55:12 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: Is there a practical reason why they are not in the same repo? No, other than trying to put them into one would grind everything to a halt for a while and would probably cost us more than we'd win. (All pull requests would need to be recreated, for one, and a lot of tools will break.) Would at having them as submodules of dmd ease everything? They could be separate repos, but the makefiles would try to find them in the submodule location and if there, great, otherwise, keep business. On a separate topic: are the official DMD releases compiled with the previous version of DMD or GDC? How does that work?
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 07:31:10 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 08:23 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:57:39 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 01:20 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): IMO it is a denial of reality to put them in three separate repositories since they are so strongly coupled in practice - their makefiles reference each other! Yes, this is the main reason why I does not do dmd and druntime development much often. I really hate when I try to bisect regressions. That's what digger is for: https://github.com/CyberShadow/Digger - Jonathan M Davis Yeah I know it there is a some tool, but I can not find it last time. I just find dustmite and dvm. Thanks :) Maybe the wiki should explain how to use digger and have the more detailed explanation as an appendix: "the hard way".
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:37:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 02:07:54 UTC, Etienne wrote: On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: [...] It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. It's also a pain to edit. It's been suggested several times that we change the build system (e.g. to use https://github.com/atilaneves/reggae), but IIRC, Walter and Andrei have generally been opposed to the idea of changing it. It's one of those things that frequent contributors have more or less sorted out and don't usually worry about much anymore (aside perhaps from the rare occasions when they need to edit the makefiles), whereas it definitely tends to bite folks who aren't familiar with it. And building the documentation is that much worse. Tell me about it. I'm still not 100% sure what I need to do to build the docs and only managed the 1st time at DConf 2015 with Robert next to me telling me what to do. Atila
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/16 6:30 PM, Márcio Martins wrote: I decided to try a couple ideas in druntime and followed this http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Fetch_dmd_from_GitHub OK, I added this section: http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Running_Independent_Programs Please let me know if it floats your boat. Thanks! Andrei
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/16 6:30 PM, Márcio Martins wrote: I decided to try a couple ideas in druntime and followed this http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Fetch_dmd_from_GitHub Everything went fast and smooth - I have a custom built dmd version. Bootstrapping and building dmd was suspiciously fast - took around 15 secs maybe, if I remember right, I did my changes to druntime, rebuilt with make -f posix.mak Compiled a test case with ../dmd/src/dmd test.d, but my changes were not reflected. So, I double check I actually did recompile druntime and look for the output lib files, and immediately thought that it must be picking up the system include and lib paths instead of this development env. I create a dmd.conf in ../dmd/src right next to my custom dmd binary, but still doesn't work. I try again invoking ../dmd/src/dmd -conf=../dmd/src/dmd.conf but still nothing. I try passing the -I and -L arguments in the command line but still it is not using my custom druntime. At this point I flip the table and give up - what could I be doing wrong? My expectation was that given I followed the official "tutorial" closely, everything was going to just work, instead I spent about 2 hours on this and got nowhere... dmd should have a verbose mode where it outputs what it's trying to do and with which settings, so I could have a chance at seeing what I have messed up, and what linker command it is invoking, ... as it is, I felt totally in the dark, and that just adds to the frustration. I am on Ubuntu 15 and got a system-wide dmd installed from the official .deb package. Hi Márcio, thanks for reaching out. You actually did everything right and you succeeded. The only thing missing is a misunderstanding that I'll fix in the document. That page is meant for folks who want to change dmd, phobos, or druntime. With your setup, if you make a change to druntime and rebuild it (and phobos), the change _will_ be reflected properly. E.g. put an assert(0); in some unittest and see it failing. This is because all paths to dmd, druntime, phobos are set up properly in the makefiles. However, when you tried to compile some independent program outside these, indeed your system defaults entered in action. You need a different command line for those, which I'll specify in http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor. Thanks, Andrei
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:48:31 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: [...] When you figure it out maybe you could draft a clear explanation of whats missing from the existing wiki instructions to append as a set of hints and tips. Updating the wiki is good, but not nearly as important as a command you run that just works. Atila
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 14:19:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 2/10/16 6:30 PM, Márcio Martins wrote: I decided to try a couple ideas in druntime and followed this http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Fetch_dmd_from_GitHub OK, I added this section: http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Running_Independent_Programs Please let me know if it floats your boat. Thanks! Andrei Great, thanks Andrei! Here is my first contribution: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/1497 Go ahead and destroy!
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 12:59:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 12:08:53 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: On a separate topic: are the official DMD releases compiled with the previous version of DMD or GDC? How does that work? Yes, with a previous DMD version. IIRC, there is a makefile target which downloads an older DMD, if necessary. IIRC, it uses 2.067 and will continue to do so until GDC and LDC have switched to using the D version of the frontend instead of the older, C++ version. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: dmd should have a verbose mode where it outputs what it's trying to do and with which settings, so I could have a chance at seeing what I have messed up, and what linker command it is invoking, ... as it is, I felt totally in the dark, and that just adds to the frustration. The "-v" (verbose) option does this. You can find a list of DMD options and such here: http://dlang.org/dmd-linux.html
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: I did my changes to druntime, rebuilt with make -f posix.mak You really need to build all three together to see changes effectively... IMO it is a denial of reality to put them in three separate repositories since they are so strongly coupled in practice - their makefiles reference each other! I create a dmd.conf in ../dmd/src right next to my custom dmd binary, but still doesn't work. That shouldn't be necessary, but building phobos as well as your custom druntime probably is. dmd should have a verbose mode where it outputs what it's trying to do and with which settings, so I could have a chance at seeing what I have messed up, and what linker command it is try `dmd -v`
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:57:39 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 01:20 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): IMO it is a denial of reality to put them in three separate repositories since they are so strongly coupled in practice - their makefiles reference each other! Yes, this is the main reason why I does not do dmd and druntime development much often. I really hate when I try to bisect regressions. That's what digger is for: https://github.com/CyberShadow/Digger But yes, having everything in one repo would make some things easier. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/2016 6:07 PM, Etienne wrote: It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. These are opportunities to improve things. If you could issue PRs to improve the documentation at the pain points, it'll help the next traveler. Or at least open a bugzilla issue for it.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/2016 6:07 PM, Etienne wrote: It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. "Use the Source, Luke" -- Unix Documentation
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: I decided to try a couple ideas in druntime and followed this http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Fetch_dmd_from_GitHub Everything went fast and smooth - I have a custom built dmd version. Bootstrapping and building dmd was suspiciously fast - took around 15 secs maybe, if I remember right, I did my changes to druntime, rebuilt with make -f posix.mak Compiled a test case with ../dmd/src/dmd test.d, but my changes were not reflected. So, I double check I actually did recompile druntime and look for the output lib files, and immediately thought that it must be picking up the system include and lib paths instead of this development env. I create a dmd.conf in ../dmd/src right next to my custom dmd binary, but still doesn't work. I try again invoking ../dmd/src/dmd -conf=../dmd/src/dmd.conf but still nothing. I try passing the -I and -L arguments in the command line but still it is not using my custom druntime. At this point I flip the table and give up - what could I be doing wrong? My expectation was that given I followed the official "tutorial" closely, everything was going to just work, instead I spent about 2 hours on this and got nowhere... dmd should have a verbose mode where it outputs what it's trying to do and with which settings, so I could have a chance at seeing what I have messed up, and what linker command it is invoking, ... as it is, I felt totally in the dark, and that just adds to the frustration. I am on Ubuntu 15 and got a system-wide dmd installed from the official .deb package. When you figure it out maybe you could draft a clear explanation of whats missing from the existing wiki instructions to append as a set of hints and tips. One of the biggest problems with explaining things is that it's hard to remember what it was like not to know something, and so experts can often be terrible at explaining things because it seems obvious (and as Ray Charles said, everything is easy when you know how to do it).
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
Dne 11.2.2016 v 01:20 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: I did my changes to druntime, rebuilt with make -f posix.mak You really need to build all three together to see changes effectively... IMO it is a denial of reality to put them in three separate repositories since they are so strongly coupled in practice - their makefiles reference each other! Yes, this is the main reason why I does not do dmd and druntime development much often. I really hate when I try to bisect regressions. Separate repositories make this really annoying. This is one of thing where gdc developers makes better than ldc.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
Dne 11.2.2016 v 05:37 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 02:07:54 UTC, Etienne wrote: On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: My expectation was that given I followed the official "tutorial" closely, everything was going to just work, instead I spent about 2 hours on this and got nowhere... It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. ... Personally, I'd love to see it changed to something more maintainable, but we'd have to be sure that what we were switching to really was better. I think that anything would be better than what we have now :) - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 02:07:54 UTC, Etienne wrote: On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: My expectation was that given I followed the official "tutorial" closely, everything was going to just work, instead I spent about 2 hours on this and got nowhere... It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. "Use the source, Luke!"
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
Dne 11.2.2016 v 05:52 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On 2/10/2016 6:07 PM, Etienne wrote: It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. These are opportunities to improve things. If you could issue PRs to improve the documentation at the pain points, it'll help the next traveler. Or at least open a bugzilla issue for it. Documentation is only one part of problem. Every time when I want to contribute to D(dmd, druntime + phobos) it takes hours(days) of persuasion of myself. Adding some new feature or fix something new is generaly easy (still it is useless hard), but when I want to find out regression it is really annoying and I often give up.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:37:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And building the documentation is that much worse. I'm fixing that at least! My docs: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.html are built with a single simple command: docs path/to/phobos done. No need to install several repos of crap.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:48:31 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: (and as Ray Charles said, everything is easy when you know how to do it). Not the case here: even when you know how to use the D build system, it still sucks and is very hard to use. The PR review team has let wrong things go past several times because it is so convoluted.
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
Dne 11.2.2016 v 08:23 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:57:39 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: Dne 11.2.2016 v 01:20 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d napsal(a): IMO it is a denial of reality to put them in three separate repositories since they are so strongly coupled in practice - their makefiles reference each other! Yes, this is the main reason why I does not do dmd and druntime development much often. I really hate when I try to bisect regressions. That's what digger is for: https://github.com/CyberShadow/Digger But yes, having everything in one repo would make some things easier. - Jonathan M Davis Yeah I know it there is a some tool, but I can not find it last time. I just find dustmite and dvm. Thanks :)
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 02:07:54 UTC, Etienne wrote: On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: My expectation was that given I followed the official "tutorial" closely, everything was going to just work, instead I spent about 2 hours on this and got nowhere... It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually. It's also a pain to edit. It's been suggested several times that we change the build system (e.g. to use https://github.com/atilaneves/reggae), but IIRC, Walter and Andrei have generally been opposed to the idea of changing it. It's one of those things that frequent contributors have more or less sorted out and don't usually worry about much anymore (aside perhaps from the rare occasions when they need to edit the makefiles), whereas it definitely tends to bite folks who aren't familiar with it. And building the documentation is that much worse. Personally, I'd love to see it changed to something more maintainable, but we'd have to be sure that what we were switching to really was better. As it is, I wrote a program that I use to update the source and do builds on my machine so that building is semi-sane, and I suspect that other contributors have done similar. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:30:03 +, Márcio Martins wrote: > So, I double check I actually did recompile druntime and look for the > output lib files, and immediately thought that it must be picking up the > system include and lib paths instead of this development env. I'm working on druntime stuff now, and I'm about to run into the same issue. I notice that the dmd 2.070 package does not contain libdruntime. I presume it's rolled into libphobos. And I notice that the phobos makefile references "../druntime". Try building phobos as well and see how that works?
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:30:03PM +, Márcio Martins via Digitalmars-d wrote: > I decided to try a couple ideas in druntime and followed this > http://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Fetch_dmd_from_GitHub > > Everything went fast and smooth - I have a custom built dmd version. > Bootstrapping and building dmd was suspiciously fast - took around 15 > secs maybe, if I remember right, > > > I did my changes to druntime, rebuilt with make -f posix.mak > > Compiled a test case with ../dmd/src/dmd test.d, but my changes were > not reflected. Druntime is not linked to compiled programs by itself; it gets linked as part of Phobos. So after making changes in druntime, you have to also rebuild Phobos before you will see your changes reflected. [...] > dmd should have a verbose mode where it outputs what it's trying to do > and with which settings, so I could have a chance at seeing what I > have messed up, and what linker command it is invoking, ... as it is, > I felt totally in the dark, and that just adds to the frustration. [...] You're looking for: dmd -v T -- Freedom of speech: the whole world has no right *not* to hear my spouting off!
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/2016 4:45 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: dmd should have a verbose mode where it outputs what it's trying to do and with which settings, so I could have a chance at seeing what I have messed up, and what linker command it is invoking, ... as it is, I felt totally in the dark, and that just adds to the frustration. You're looking for: dmd -v http://dlang.org/dmd-windows.html#switch-v
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On 2/10/16 6:40 PM, Chris Wright wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:30:03 +, Márcio Martins wrote: So, I double check I actually did recompile druntime and look for the output lib files, and immediately thought that it must be picking up the system include and lib paths instead of this development env. I'm working on druntime stuff now, and I'm about to run into the same issue. I notice that the dmd 2.070 package does not contain libdruntime. I presume it's rolled into libphobos. And I notice that the phobos makefile references "../druntime". Try building phobos as well and see how that works? Psst! libdruntime was never used. It was always used as compiled in phobos. I don't know why it was ever included. -Steve
Re: Wannabe contributor frustrations
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:30:03 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote: My expectation was that given I followed the official "tutorial" closely, everything was going to just work, instead I spent about 2 hours on this and got nowhere... It took me way more than 2 hours to grasp how this build process works. It wasn't until I had read through the whole source code actually.
