ATTENTION master tinderbox uploaders (was: How are installation sets being built?)
On 10/11/2013 10:48 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: So, if there are no complaints coming, I'll change the meaning of --with-package-format so that only if --with-package-format=... is explicitly specified are installation sets (of the specified kinds) generated. Done with http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=8fc7e560db11f424362c8effdeb61eb8d1526256 Make building installation sets depend on --with-package-format=... TDF release builds should not be affected negatively, as for those cases where https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/ReleaseBuilds does not explicitly mention a --with-package-format=..., the relevant distro-configs/*.conf does now. But some of the tinderboxes that upload master dailies might suddenly stop to do so if they do not specify --with-package-format=... (either directly or indirectly via --with-distro=...). Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: How are installation sets being built?
On 10/10/2013 04:12 PM, Michael Stahl wrote: On 10/10/13 09:14, Stephan Bergmann wrote: which brings me back to my original question for a universal trigger whether or not to produce installation sets during a build. Seeing that --enable-epm currently effectively fulfills that role everywhere but on Windows, one option would be to make it fulfill that role on Windows too. (I have a local patch to do that.) The alternative would be to introduce an explicit --enable-installation-sets. Opinions, anyone? we already have --with-package-format, much simpler to do nothing if the user doesn't specify that than adding another option, or using --enable-epm on a plaform where EPM is irrelevant. Yes, sounds better to tweak --with-package-format into that role than to stretch --enable-epm. So, if there are no complaints coming, I'll change the meaning of --with-package-format so that only if --with-package-format=... is explicitly specified are installation sets (of the specified kinds) generated. Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: How are installation sets being built?
So, if there are no complaints coming, I'll change the meaning of --with-package-format so that only if --with-package-format=... is explicitly specified are installation sets (of the specified kinds) generated. Sounds excellent, great! --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: How are installation sets being built?
On 10/09/2013 10:58 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com wrote: I was always thinking that --enable-epm (despite its name) was the magic autogen.input switch to instruct a top-level make (or make check) to also build installation sets (deb, rpm, dmg, msi, ...), on all platforms. Nope - but it is the prerequisite to build deb and rpms - and was also uses for dmg, due to similarities, but msi is completely different and not supported by epm. Sure. It's just that I think we want to have a trigger whether or not to produce installation sets during a build, and I always thought that --enable-epm, despite its name and original purpose, achieved that. (But, it appears, it happens to achieve that only for non-Windows builds.) So, I am wondering how exactly the official TDF-released installation sets are being built for the various platforms. What are the autogen.sh (autogen.input) switches, and what are the exact make command lines? https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/ReleaseBuilds Ah, good to know. And the commands issued to do the build are just ./autogen.sh and a no-arguments make? (Btw, https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/ReleaseBuilds#Linux_.28same_options_for_x86_.26_x86_64.29 misses the manually updated flex now, IIUC, right?) Where is that stored in git or similar (if it is stored anywhere at all)? Not stored in git - the relevant feature switches are all in the distro-config, the other parameters are just details, like where to store external tarballs, what languages to build, options to accellerate one-off builds (disable-dependency-tracking) - and the packaging options for linux. Yeah, I get the idea. build process creates input file for epm, and epm converts to rpm spec file and deb input file and runs rpmbuild/dpkg to pack the binaries into the package. without epm, you cannot feed rpmbuild/deb with the corresponding controlfile, so that's why this also toggles building of installation sets. I don't know why it is used for Mac, as there are no individual packages, but I assume that's scp2 heritage. ...which brings me back to my original question for a universal trigger whether or not to produce installation sets during a build. Seeing that --enable-epm currently effectively fulfills that role everywhere but on Windows, one option would be to make it fulfill that role on Windows too. (I have a local patch to do that.) The alternative would be to introduce an explicit --enable-installation-sets. Opinions, anyone? Similarly, how exactly are any of those nightly installation sets (uploaded from select tinderboxes, IIUC) being built? How can you trace that? My understanding is that those are the regular installsets that are created using epm. Yes, that's my understanding, too. The configure switches for the individual tinderboxes are in the logs on tinderbox.libreoffice.org, and there should be a build-info file in the directory with the uploaded packages, e.g. http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/libreoffice-4-1/MacOSX-Intel@27-OSX_10.7.0-gcc_4.2.1_llvm/2013-10-09_13.15.57/libreoffice-4-1~2013-10-09_13.15.57_build_info.txt that lists the configure switches. Ah, there's an example of such a file, thanks. I was pretty sure we had something like that, just couldn't find any in that maze of mostly empty directories at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: How are installation sets being built?
On 10/10/13 09:14, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 10/09/2013 10:58 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: I don't know why it is used for Mac, as there are no individual packages, but I assume that's scp2 heritage. which brings me back to my original question for a universal trigger whether or not to produce installation sets during a build. Seeing that --enable-epm currently effectively fulfills that role everywhere but on Windows, one option would be to make it fulfill that role on Windows too. (I have a local patch to do that.) The alternative would be to introduce an explicit --enable-installation-sets. Opinions, anyone? we already have --with-package-format, much simpler to do nothing if the user doesn't specify that than adding another option, or using --enable-epm on a plaform where EPM is irrelevant. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: How are installation sets being built?
Hi Stephan, *, On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com wrote: I was always thinking that --enable-epm (despite its name) was the magic autogen.input switch to instruct a top-level make (or make check) to also build installation sets (deb, rpm, dmg, msi, ...), on all platforms. Nope - but it is the prerequisite to build deb and rpms - and was also uses for dmg, due to similarities, but msi is completely different and not supported by epm. So, I am wondering how exactly the official TDF-released installation sets are being built for the various platforms. What are the autogen.sh (autogen.input) switches, and what are the exact make command lines? https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/ReleaseBuilds Where is that stored in git or similar (if it is stored anywhere at all)? Not stored in git - the relevant feature switches are all in the distro-config, the other parameters are just details, like where to store external tarballs, what languages to build, options to accellerate one-off builds (disable-dependency-tracking) - and the packaging options for linux. build process creates input file for epm, and epm converts to rpm spec file and deb input file and runs rpmbuild/dpkg to pack the binaries into the package. without epm, you cannot feed rpmbuild/deb with the corresponding controlfile, so that's why this also toggles building of installation sets. I don't know why it is used for Mac, as there are no individual packages, but I assume that's scp2 heritage. Similarly, how exactly are any of those nightly installation sets (uploaded from select tinderboxes, IIUC) being built? How can you trace that? My understanding is that those are the regular installsets that are created using epm. The configure switches for the individual tinderboxes are in the logs on tinderbox.libreoffice.org, and there should be a build-info file in the directory with the uploaded packages, e.g. http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/libreoffice-4-1/MacOSX-Intel@27-OSX_10.7.0-gcc_4.2.1_llvm/2013-10-09_13.15.57/libreoffice-4-1~2013-10-09_13.15.57_build_info.txt that lists the configure switches. HTH, ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
How are installation sets being built?
Hi all, I was always thinking that --enable-epm (despite its name) was the magic autogen.input switch to instruct a top-level make (or make check) to also build installation sets (deb, rpm, dmg, msi, ...), on all platforms. (And that the phenomenon that Windows continued to build an archive installation set regardless of --dis-/enable-epm was an inadvertent leftover from the old OOo times where such an archive installation set was needed to run the subsequentcheck tests agaist.) However, git grep -Flw -e --enable-epm makes me doubtful about my assumption, as only distro-configs/LibreOfficeLinux.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeMacOSX.conf distro-configs/OxygenOfficeLinux.conf mention it, while distro-configs/LibreOfficeAndroid.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeAndroidX86.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeMinGW.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeOpenBSD.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeWin32.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeWin64.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeiOS.conf distro-configs/OxygenOfficeWin32.conf do not. So, I am wondering how exactly the official TDF-released installation sets are being built for the various platforms. What are the autogen.sh (autogen.input) switches, and what are the exact make command lines? Where is that stored in git or similar (if it is stored anywhere at all)? Similarly, how exactly are any of those nightly installation sets (uploaded from select tinderboxes, IIUC) being built? How can you trace that? (I'm asking because I noticed that after instdir-ification we still always build a now-useless archive installation set on Windows during make and make check, regardless of --dis-/enable-epm, and I wanted to clean that up. Which is especially important now that that installation set is built in parallel with running the make check subsequenttests, which appears to have destabilizing effects at least for some.) Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
How are installation sets being built?
Hi all, I was always thinking that --enable-epm (despite its name) was the magic autogen.input switch to instruct a top-level make (or make check) to also build installation sets (deb, rpm, dmg, msi, ...), on all platforms. (And that the phenomenon that Windows continued to build an archive installation set regardless of --dis-/enable-epm was an inadvertent leftover from the old OOo times where such an archive installation set was needed to run the subsequentcheck tests agaist.) However, git grep -Flw -e --enable-epm makes me doubtful about my assumption, as only distro-configs/LibreOfficeLinux.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeMacOSX.conf distro-configs/OxygenOfficeLinux.conf mention it, while distro-configs/LibreOfficeAndroid.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeAndroidX86.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeMinGW.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeOpenBSD.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeWin32.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeWin64.conf distro-configs/LibreOfficeiOS.conf distro-configs/OxygenOfficeWin32.conf do not. So, I am wondering how exactly the official TDF-released installation sets are being built for the various platforms. What are the autogen.sh (autogen.input) switches, and what are the exact make command lines? Where is that stored in git or similar (if it is stored anywhere at all)? Similarly, how exactly are any of those nightly installation sets (uploaded from select tinderboxes, IIUC) being built? How can you trace that? (I'm asking because I noticed that after instdir-ification we still always build a now-useless archive installation set on Windows during make and make check, regardless of --dis-/enable-epm, and I wanted to clean that up. Which is especially important now that that installation set is built in parallel with running the make check subsequenttests, which appears to have destabilizing effects at least for some.) Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: How are installation sets being built?
FWIW, this was the configuration I used for the 4.1 Linux builds while I was the one building them. --with-distro=LibreOfficeLinux --with-package-format=rpm deb --with-lang=ALL --enable-release-build --with-branding=/home/baseline/core/src/tdf-branding-4-1 C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
