Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3
On 18 June 2013 02:15, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: There is a fresh build of Fossil for windows at: http://www.fossil-scm.org/tmp/fossil-20130614-win.zip downloaded, but the binary inside the .zip doesn't run on my win32 system. (Could it be a 64-bit binary? dependency walker hints at this). Instead, built using VS2008 a recent version (version 1.25 [a6dad6508c] 2013-06-14 07:19:58 UTC) on win32 client and the same version on the *nix server. Rebuilding the repo using this new version on the server, and then cloning on the win32 box using this version on both sides unfortunately gave the same result as described in earlier mails. For the time being I will park the faulty/suspect repo somewhere, and create a new repo to work on. I'd be happy to assist in further debugging. (It's not necessary to provide prebuilt windows binaries for me, as apparently I can build these myself now - impressed as always with the clean and easy build-process :-) Thank you, Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3
On 18 June 2013 11:06, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote: For the time being I will park the faulty/suspect repo somewhere, and create a new repo to work on. Ok, did that - created new repo from scratch and added files, then tried cloning with new fossil-version on both server- and client-side. Oddly enough I see the similar behaviour as the original issue. I tried to isolate it a bit; there seem to be 2 files (a .zip and an .exe) that, when added to a clean repo, each cause cloning of that repo to fail; only when both are omitted does cloning on my win32 box succeed. A clean archive with either one of these files (in their original dir-structure, but omitting all other files) would cause failure. A repo with both files is available at http://83.117.36.67 SHA1/size of both: michai@lime:/tmp/binsearch/f$ sha1 * SHA1 (JN-AN-1110_JenNet-IP-Border-Router-BR_1v6v1.zip) = 2cec006763915be86cc3730481e1b703c0553526 SHA1 (JN-SW-4041-SDK-Toolchain-v1.1.exe) = 93979b198b794a26456ad8069404b8cfe8949bb6 michai@lime:/tmp/binsearch/f$ ls -l * -rw-r--r-- 1 michai wheel 102068822 Jun 12 10:51 JN-AN-1110_JenNet-IP-Border-Router-BR_1v6v1.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 michai wheel 156939992 Jun 11 22:40 JN-SW-4041-SDK-Toolchain-v1.1.exe (I am running 'f server' from within the source tree - running a server like this or with repo-file as argument doesn't seem to matter.) Hope this helps (and reproduces at all) in debugging. Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3
FYI, dumpbin confirms that it's a 64-bit executable. Pete On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.comwrote: On 18 June 2013 02:15, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: There is a fresh build of Fossil for windows at: http://www.fossil-scm.org/tmp/fossil-20130614-win.zip downloaded, but the binary inside the .zip doesn't run on my win32 system. (Could it be a 64-bit binary? dependency walker hints at this). Instead, built using VS2008 a recent version (version 1.25 [a6dad6508c] 2013-06-14 07:19:58 UTC) on win32 client and the same version on the *nix server. Rebuilding the repo using this new version on the server, and then cloning on the win32 box using this version on both sides unfortunately gave the same result as described in earlier mails. For the time being I will park the faulty/suspect repo somewhere, and create a new repo to work on. I'd be happy to assist in further debugging. (It's not necessary to provide prebuilt windows binaries for me, as apparently I can build these myself now - impressed as always with the clean and easy build-process :-) Thank you, Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.comwrote: Rather than hijack that thread... Regarding 1.26... How up-to-date is our feature list page? http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/changes.wiki i've added what i'm aware of, but didn't dig through all of the commits. @Devs: please add your contributions since the 1.25 release to www/changes.wiki. Assuming there are no other code changes within the next few hours (and no objections), we can take the trunk after changes.wiki is updated. Thanks for the updates Stephan. I'm studying the diffs now (fossil diff --tk -c 50 --from release). And looking at http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?n=1000y=cia=releaset=trunk to see what else has changed. I've also updated the version number to 1.26 in preparation for the release. -- Forwarded message -- From: Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3 To: fossil-users fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.comwrote: i can commit to preparing one this week, and can test i32 and x64 ubuntu. More concretely... i haven't been able to sleep tonight (thanks to a valgrind warning ;) and will be taking most of the day off today, so i will be able to prepare one this afternoon (that's in 10 or 12 hours). i've still go the links to the commit checklist somewhere, and will just start from there unless i hear otherwise. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
Rather than hijack that thread... Regarding 1.26... How up-to-date is our feature list page? http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/changes.wiki i've added what i'm aware of, but didn't dig through all of the commits. @Devs: please add your contributions since the 1.25 release to www/changes.wiki. Assuming there are no other code changes within the next few hours (and no objections), we can take the trunk after changes.wiki is updated. -- Forwarded message -- From: Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3 To: fossil-users fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: i can commit to preparing one this week, and can test i32 and x64 ubuntu. More concretely... i haven't been able to sleep tonight (thanks to a valgrind warning ;) and will be taking most of the day off today, so i will be able to prepare one this afternoon (that's in 10 or 12 hours). i've still go the links to the commit checklist somewhere, and will just start from there unless i hear otherwise. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Thanks for the updates Stephan. I'm studying the diffs now (fossil diff --tk -c 50 --from release). And looking at http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?n=1000y=cia=releaset=trunkto see what else has changed. I've also updated the version number to 1.26 in preparation for the release. Test errors (possibly non-critical?): test merge-utf-24-23 FAILED! test merge-utf-24-32 FAILED! test th1-setting-5 FAILED! test th1-setting-6 FAILED! :-? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: Test errors (possibly non-critical?): i'm not sure how to interpret this one: [stephan@host:~/cvs/fossil/FREL]$ ./fossil test-name-changes --debug b120bc8b262ac 374920b20944b -- Changes for (13484) b120bc8b262ac - (13348) 374920b20944b pass or fail? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: pass or fail? Not sure if this is new or not, but valgrind says (with some patience), that rebuild is leaking: ==23411== LEAK SUMMARY: ==23411==definitely lost: 420 bytes in 5 blocks ==23411==indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==23411== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==23411==still reachable: 1,065,110 bytes in 49 blocks ==23411== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks The deepest common path of the errors seems to be rebuild_step(). OTOH, there are only 5 definitely lost and i those seem to me to be our old favourites, relics from opening the repo. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Thanks for the updates Stephan. I'm studying the diffs now (fossil diff --tk -c 50 --from release). And looking at http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?n=1000y=cia=releaset=trunkto see what else has changed. I've also updated the version number to 1.26 in preparation for the release. As far as my 64-bit system is concerned, it looks good to me. My 4 year old 32-bit netbook, though, is still having a long conversation with valgrind (from which i expect the same results). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
Would it be possible to include my rather small patch in the release? My contributor agreement has been sent in, and the patch is about as small as they come. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Thanks for the updates Stephan. I'm studying the diffs now (fossil diff --tk -c 50 --from release). And looking at http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?n=1000y=cia=releaset=trunkto see what else has changed. I've also updated the version number to 1.26 in preparation for the release. As far as my 64-bit system is concerned, it looks good to me. My 4 year old 32-bit netbook, though, is still having a long conversation with valgrind (from which i expect the same results). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Laurens Van Houtven _...@lvh.io wrote: Would it be possible to include my rather small patch in the release? My contributor agreement has been sent in, and the patch is about as small as they come. I cannot find you patch in the mail archives. Are you sure you sent it? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
I attempted to, but perhaps I messed it up in some way. Message repeated below. --- Hi, I've written a pretty small patch to make fossil serve files with extension mp4 as video/mp4. This in accordance with RFC 4337[1]. The RFC says: 1. if neither audio nor video, use application/mp4 2. for every other file, use video/mp4. 3. if only audio, you *may* use audio/mp4, but video/mp4 is still fine Of course, it's impossible to guess intent from just the extension, although I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of mp4 files are being used to serve video and/or audio, in which case video/mp4 is the appropriate type to serve it with. Either way, that's an upgrade over the current behavior, which, according to curl -I at least, is sending: Content-Type: application/x-fossil-artifact; charset=utf-8 There was some extra whitespace at the end of some lines. My editor helpfully (?) removed it. If you'd like it back, I'll happily provide the same patch without the end-of-line whitespace removal. The reason I wanted this is because I am using fossil to source-control a talk I hope to give at PyCon 2014. In this talk, I have some screencasts to replace live demos. Those screencasts are MP4 (h264 + AAC, or h264 without an audio track) because of browser support. Currently, all browsers want to download this file with a Save as dialog because they don't recognize the file type. After the patch, the video just plays, in all browsers that know how to do so. This is my first patch to fossil, so apologies if I messed something up... I don't know if there's a preferred way to send patches in, but this is just the output of fossil diff. patch -p0 mp4.patch seems to work fine for applying it :) Patch is against latest trunk at time of writing. It's pretty simple, so I expect it to apply cleanly to a whole lot of revisions... checkout: a6dad6508c0e95bd0aceb28fec1a269114917ac5 2013-06-14 07:19:58 UTC thanks in advance :) lvh [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4337#section-2 mp4.patch Description: Binary data ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] release 1.26 (WAS: Fwd: cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: As far as my 64-bit system is concerned, it looks good to me. My 4 year old 32-bit netbook, though, is still having a long conversation with valgrind (from which i expect the same results). The netbook says, after its long talk with valgrind, ship it! How else can i support getting a release out? (It's bedtime here in CET, so i won't be able to continue until tomorrow evening.) -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] 1.26 release archive
The 1.26 release archive is tagged as 20130618210923 yet the extracted folder is fossil-src-20130618210323. Any chance a new tarball can be rolled? Saves me from having to put a work around in for the OpenBSD port I maintain. Thanks. -- James Turner ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] 1.26 release archive
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.net wrote: The 1.26 release archive is tagged as 20130618210923 yet the extracted folder is fossil-src-20130618210323. Any chance a new tarball can be rolled? Saves me from having to put a work around in for the OpenBSD port I maintain. I uploaded the new tarball moments before your email arrived. Please try again. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] 1.26 release archive
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:43:38PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, James Turner ja...@calminferno.net wrote: The 1.26 release archive is tagged as 20130618210923 yet the extracted folder is fossil-src-20130618210323. Any chance a new tarball can be rolled? Saves me from having to put a work around in for the OpenBSD port I maintain. I uploaded the new tarball moments before your email arrived. Please try again. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org Looks good. Thanks. -- James Turner ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Problems with Fossil 1.26 for Windows
Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the error Not a valid Win32 application. -- o-= Marcelo =-o ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Problems with Fossil 1.26 for Windows
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com wrote: Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the error Not a valid Win32 application. Ugh. I compiled it using a VS2012 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt on Win8. Anybody have a guess what might have gone wrong? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Problems with Fossil 1.26 for Windows
Maybe: Project-Application Properties-Compile Set Target CPU to *x86* https://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2012/10/08/10357555.aspx?Redirected=true t+ og On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.comwrote: Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the error Not a valid Win32 application. Ugh. I compiled it using a VS2012 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt on Win8. Anybody have a guess what might have gone wrong? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Problems with Fossil 1.26 for Windows
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:25 PM, og ogil...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe: Project-Application Properties-Compile Set Target CPU to *x86* The build was done from the *Command Line Prompt* not from a MSVC GUI, so there is no Project-Application Properties-Compile menu. If I update to http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/info/340711f48c and recompile in the same shell, it tells me that sizeof(void*)==4. So it really does seem to be building a 32-bit binary. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Problems with Fossil 1.26 for Windows
On 6/18/2013 5:53 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Richie Adler richiead...@gmail.com mailto:richiead...@gmail.com wrote: Trying to run the Windows version in Windows XP SP3 gives the error Not a valid Win32 application. Ugh. I compiled it using a VS2012 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt on Win8. Anybody have a guess what might have gone wrong? It looks like the initial release of Visual Studio 2012 did not support targeting XP and that Update 1 added that capability. The following blog article has more information including a raindance for targeting XP from the command line. (Note that I haven't used VS2012 myself.) Windows XP Targeting with C++ in Visual Studio 2012 http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2012/10/08/10357555.aspx -- Edward Berner ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3
On 6/18/2013 3:51 AM, Michai Ramakers wrote: On 18 June 2013 11:06, Michai Ramakers m.ramak...@gmail.com wrote: For the time being I will park the faulty/suspect repo somewhere, and create a new repo to work on. Ok, did that - created new repo from scratch and added files, then tried cloning with new fossil-version on both server- and client-side. Oddly enough I see the similar behaviour as the original issue. I tried to isolate it a bit; there seem to be 2 files (a .zip and an .exe) that, when added to a clean repo, each cause cloning of that repo to fail; only when both are omitted does cloning on my win32 box succeed. A clean archive with either one of these files (in their original dir-structure, but omitting all other files) would cause failure. A repo with both files is available at http://83.117.36.67 SHA1/size of both: michai@lime:/tmp/binsearch/f$ sha1 * SHA1 (JN-AN-1110_JenNet-IP-Border-Router-BR_1v6v1.zip) = 2cec006763915be86cc3730481e1b703c0553526 SHA1 (JN-SW-4041-SDK-Toolchain-v1.1.exe) = 93979b198b794a26456ad8069404b8cfe8949bb6 michai@lime:/tmp/binsearch/f$ ls -l * -rw-r--r-- 1 michai wheel 102068822 Jun 12 10:51 JN-AN-1110_JenNet-IP-Border-Router-BR_1v6v1.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 michai wheel 156939992 Jun 11 22:40 JN-SW-4041-SDK-Toolchain-v1.1.exe (I am running 'f server' from within the source tree - running a server like this or with repo-file as argument doesn't seem to matter.) Hope this helps (and reproduces at all) in debugging. I was able to reproduce a similar behavior, and I think it has to do with the size of those files. I created a 200 MB file and a 150 MB file using dd from /dev/arandom. I added those to a new repository on an OpenBSD system and was able to successfully clone it to a CentOS Linux system but it did not successfully clone to a Windows XP SP3 system. On the Windows system it finished much faster and the resulting fossil file was only about 60 KB. I'm afraid that's all the debugging I have time to do at the moment. -- Edward Berner ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] cloning / opening fails on WinXP SP3
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Edward Berner e...@bernerfam.com wrote: I was able to reproduce a similar behavior, and I think it has to do with the size of those files. I created a 200 MB file and a 150 MB file using dd from /dev/arandom. I added those to a new repository on an OpenBSD system and was able to successfully clone it to a CentOS Linux system but it did not successfully clone to a Windows XP SP3 system. I was able to clone from Linux to Win8 successfully. Do you think it is some kind of XP-specific problem? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
