Re: [Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[Gilbert Barmwater]

OK thanks Rick.  At least I'm not totally delusional :-)

Gil

On 12/14/2022 3:11 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:



On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:05 PM Gilbert Barmwater 
 wrote:


I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that there was some
documentation on the steps necessary in order to create a new
release of ooRexx.  However, my cursory attempt at locating it has
come up empty.  If anyone else remembers such a document and, more
importantly, where it is, please let us know.  In our attempt to
get 5.0.0 "out the door", I would hate to think that we might be
making mistakes either of omission or commission. Just my two
cents worth.

I have a vague memory of doing this after the 4.2.0 release, but I 
don't remember where it was. I believe it was just an email to this 
list, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything. I suspect a lot of 
that information was made obsolete by moving to the cmake-based build.


Rick

Gil

On 12/14/2022 12:39 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:


Hi P.O.,

On 14.12.2022 16:06, P.O. Jonsson wrote:



Am 14.12.2022 um 15:41 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher
:

@P.O.: is it possible for you to have the Jenkins creations
work on /docs/branches/5.0.0 and main/branches/5.0.0?



Yes, I can do the necessary changes to the Jenkins build and
test scripts as well as to the uploading scripts for the
Artifacts and the Documentation when we are ready.


Super!

We will need to look whether and what we need to change in the
documentation and installation production for ooRexx 5.0.

Also an idea: once we have the installation packages for all the
operating systems created it may be helpful for people wishing to
evaluate ooRexx 5.0.0 without installing it to create portable
versions of those packages (make portable) and place the
resulting zip-archives either in a subdirectory "portable" or
into a different location in the files menu. This may prove
helpful for future versions as well as starting with ooRexx 5.0.0
there may be different versions usable in parallel/concurrently.


Anyone who gives a helping hand is highly appreciated! :)


Ideally we should have a 5.0.0 folder on sourceforge for the
frozen  „Release“ version and then a 5.0.1beta for all the work
committed to the next release. I assume there is a lot of work
to be done with the status of all bug reports as well, I have no
experience of these parts so I hope someone else can come
forward for doing that.


Yes, this has a little time though. When creating a new folder
there is an option for staging it for three days which means that
we as developers can use it, but no one would see it. This allows
us to experiment and to change the content of that directory.

Until then (next week?) I would not change anything there at this
point in time.

---

Also, we probably need to increase the version number of ooRexx
in trunk from 5.0.0 probably to 5.1.0 and the standard
installation packages produced by Jenkins would then go to
"5.1.0beta"?

Are there other changes we should apply to trunk?

---rony




___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel



___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[Rick McGuire]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:05 PM Gilbert Barmwater 
wrote:

> I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that there was some documentation
> on the steps necessary in order to create a new release of ooRexx.
> However, my cursory attempt at locating it has come up empty.  If anyone
> else remembers such a document and, more importantly, where it is, please
> let us know.  In our attempt to get 5.0.0 "out the door", I would hate to
> think that we might be making mistakes either of omission or commission.
> Just my two cents worth.
>
I have a vague memory of doing this after the 4.2.0 release, but I don't
remember where it was. I believe it was just an email to this list, but a
cursory search didn't turn up anything. I suspect a lot of that information
was made obsolete by moving to the cmake-based build.

Rick



> Gil
> On 12/14/2022 12:39 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>
> Hi P.O.,
> On 14.12.2022 16:06, P.O. Jonsson wrote:
>
>
> Am 14.12.2022 um 15:41 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher  >:
>
> @P.O.: is it possible for you to have the Jenkins creations work on
> /docs/branches/5.0.0 and main/branches/5.0.0?
>
> Yes, I can do the necessary changes to the Jenkins build and test scripts
> as well as to the uploading scripts for the Artifacts and the Documentation
> when we are ready.
>
> Super!
>
> We will need to look whether and what we need to change in the
> documentation and installation production for ooRexx 5.0.
>
> Also an idea: once we have the installation packages for all the operating
> systems created it may be helpful for people wishing to evaluate ooRexx
> 5.0.0 without installing it to create portable versions of those packages
> (make portable) and place the resulting zip-archives either in a
> subdirectory "portable" or into a different location in the files menu.
> This may prove helpful for future versions as well as starting with ooRexx
> 5.0.0 there may be different versions usable in parallel/concurrently.
>
> Anyone who gives a helping hand is highly appreciated! :)
>
> Ideally we should have a 5.0.0 folder on sourceforge for the frozen
>  „Release“ version and then a 5.0.1beta for all the work committed to the
> next release. I assume there is a lot of work to be done with the status of
> all bug reports as well, I have no experience of these parts so I hope
> someone else can come forward for doing that.
>
> Yes, this has a little time though. When creating a new folder there is an
> option for staging it for three days which means that we as developers can
> use it, but no one would see it. This allows us to experiment and to change
> the content of that directory.
>
> Until then (next week?) I would not change anything there at this point in
> time.
>
> ---
>
> Also, we probably need to increase the version number of ooRexx in trunk
> from 5.0.0 probably to 5.1.0 and the standard installation packages
> produced by Jenkins would then go to "5.1.0beta"?
>
> Are there other changes we should apply to trunk?
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing 
> listOorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[Gilbert Barmwater]

I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that there was some 
documentation on the steps necessary in order to create a new release of 
ooRexx.  However, my cursory attempt at locating it has come up empty.  
If anyone else remembers such a document and, more importantly, where it 
is, please let us know.  In our attempt to get 5.0.0 "out the door", I 
would hate to think that we might be making mistakes either of omission 
or commission. Just my two cents worth.


Gil

On 12/14/2022 12:39 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:


Hi P.O.,

On 14.12.2022 16:06, P.O. Jonsson wrote:


Am 14.12.2022 um 15:41 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher 
:


@P.O.: is it possible for you to have the Jenkins creations work on 
/docs/branches/5.0.0 and main/branches/5.0.0?



Yes, I can do the necessary changes to the Jenkins build and test 
scripts as well as to the uploading scripts for the Artifacts and the 
Documentation when we are ready.


Super!

We will need to look whether and what we need to change in the 
documentation and installation production for ooRexx 5.0.


Also an idea: once we have the installation packages for all the 
operating systems created it may be helpful for people wishing to 
evaluate ooRexx 5.0.0 without installing it to create portable 
versions of those packages (make portable) and place the resulting 
zip-archives either in a subdirectory "portable" or into a different 
location in the files menu. This may prove helpful for future versions 
as well as starting with ooRexx 5.0.0 there may be different versions 
usable in parallel/concurrently.



Anyone who gives a helping hand is highly appreciated! :)

Ideally we should have a 5.0.0 folder on sourceforge for the frozen 
 „Release“ version and then a 5.0.1beta for all the work committed to 
the next release. I assume there is a lot of work to be done with the 
status of all bug reports as well, I have no experience of these 
parts so I hope someone else can come forward for doing that.


Yes, this has a little time though. When creating a new folder there 
is an option for staging it for three days which means that we as 
developers can use it, but no one would see it. This allows us to 
experiment and to change the content of that directory.


Until then (next week?) I would not change anything there at this 
point in time.


---

Also, we probably need to increase the version number of ooRexx in 
trunk from 5.0.0 probably to 5.1.0 and the standard installation 
packages produced by Jenkins would then go to "5.1.0beta"?


Are there other changes we should apply to trunk?

---rony




___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[Rony G. Flatscher]

Hi P.O.,

On 14.12.2022 16:06, P.O. Jonsson wrote:



Am 14.12.2022 um 15:41 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher :

@P.O.: is it possible for you to have the Jenkins creations work on /docs/branches/5.0.0 and 
main/branches/5.0.0?



Yes, I can do the necessary changes to the Jenkins build and test scripts as well as to the 
uploading scripts for the Artifacts and the Documentation when we are ready.


Super!

We will need to look whether and what we need to change in the documentation and installation 
production for ooRexx 5.0.


Also an idea: once we have the installation packages for all the operating systems created it may be 
helpful for people wishing to evaluate ooRexx 5.0.0 without installing it to create portable 
versions of those packages (make portable) and place the resulting zip-archives either in a 
subdirectory "portable" or into a different location in the files menu. This may prove helpful for 
future versions as well as starting with ooRexx 5.0.0 there may be different versions usable in 
parallel/concurrently.



Anyone who gives a helping hand is highly appreciated! :)

Ideally we should have a 5.0.0 folder on sourceforge for the frozen  „Release“ version and then a 
5.0.1beta for all the work committed to the next release. I assume there is a lot of work to be 
done with the status of all bug reports as well, I have no experience of these parts so I hope 
someone else can come forward for doing that.


Yes, this has a little time though. When creating a new folder there is an option for staging it for 
three days which means that we as developers can use it, but no one would see it. This allows us to 
experiment and to change the content of that directory.


Until then (next week?) I would not change anything there at this point in time.

---

Also, we probably need to increase the version number of ooRexx in trunk from 5.0.0 probably to 
5.1.0 and the standard installation packages produced by Jenkins would then go to "5.1.0beta"?


Are there other changes we should apply to trunk?

---rony

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel]

Rony,
THANK YOU for getting this train to move forward eventually!!
Great!
And Apple was the root of all evil, wasn't it:-)
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx serviced by the Sourceforge website

[René Jansen]

I agree, and will enable some more admins of the SourceForge RexxLA repository, 
so we can do a release. This will mean we will not have to discuss this 
seemingly eternal issue here anymore, and the people that are worried by the 
label, can finally stop worrying. I think we owe that to ooRexx and all the 
work that has been done.

best regards.

René. 

> On 14 Dec 2022, at 09:34, Mike Cowlishaw  wrote:
> 
> I fear that if we just keep discussing things that need to be done another
> 10 years will pass.
> 
> Surely the priority here is to get 5.0 out there for most platforms, and
> worry about loose ends afterwards?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at] 
>> Sent: 14 December 2022 13:24
>> To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx 
>> serviced by the Sourceforge website
>> 
>> On 13.12.2022 16:59, P.O. Jonsson wrote:
 This was my point: currently all Apple users get outdated not 
 workable ooRexx by the official ooRexx site. ALLl official 
>> versions 
 of ooRexx for macOS are broken and do not install, not the 
>> 32 bit and 
 not the 64 bit version of ooRexx 4. We do not currently have ANY 
 official version of ooRexx that install with ANY Mac (Intel or 
 M1/ARM) running OS X El Capitan (2015) (OS X 10.11) or newer. This 
 problem is 7 years old :-(
>>> Dear Rony, I take that back, actually the official 64 bit 
>> version DOES work, and installs to /opt. I think this was my 
>> tinkering way back then. But /opt is a hidden folder on macOS 
>> so not so easy to find back once installed.
>>> 
>>> You still need to set PATH=/opt/ooRexx/bin:$PATH (and 
>> DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/ooRexx/lib/ooRexx) to make it run and 
>> there is no uninstaller. But changing the pointer to 64 bit 
>> instead of 32 bit would be a good thing, also if the 4.1.2 is 
>> now 10 years old (September 2012).
>> 
>> Just tried it from my Mac and got as download offered a "4.0 
>> all" zip, which is also neither helpful nor useful for Apple 
>> users. So it is really time to get a nice, working and 
>> up-to-date version of ooRexx to the Apple table ...
>> 
>> ---rony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel



___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[P.O. Jonsson]

> Am 14.12.2022 um 15:41 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher :
> 
> @P.O.: is it possible for you to have the Jenkins creations work on 
> /docs/branches/5.0.0 and main/branches/5.0.0?
> 
> 
Yes, I can do the necessary changes to the Jenkins build and test scripts as 
well as to the uploading scripts for the Artifacts and the Documentation when 
we are ready.
> Anyone who gives a helping hand is highly appreciated! :)
> 
Ideally we should have a 5.0.0 folder on sourceforge for the frozen  „Release“ 
version and then a 5.0.1beta for all the work committed to the next release. I 
assume there is a lot of work to be done with the status of all bug reports as 
well, I have no experience of these parts so I hope someone else can come 
forward for doing that.

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

[Oorexx-devel] Release ooRexx 5.0.0: Step 1 (Re: Proposal for creating a release version for ooRexx 5.0.0

[Rony G. Flatscher]

Having not heard any objectsions I just created branches/5.0.0 for the docs and 
the code.

This should allow us to change the branches/5.0.0 whatever changes need to be 
done for the release.

@P.O.: is it possible for you to have the Jenkins creations work on /docs/branches/5.0.0 and 
main/branches/5.0.0?


Anyone who gives a helping hand is highly appreciated! :)

---rony

P.S.: Will try to document the necessary steps and create a wiki item for 
future releases.

P.P.S.: Here the svn commands to create the branches:

svn copy --username=userIdsvn+ssh://or...@svn.code.sf.net/p/oorexx/code-0/docs/trunk  
svn+ssh://or...@svn.code.sf.net/p/oorexx/code-0/docs/branches/5.0.0  -m "Creating 
docs branch 5.0.0 to prepare release."

svn copy --username=userIdsvn+ssh://or...@svn.code.sf.net/p/oorexx/code-0/main/trunk  
svn+ssh://or...@svn.code.sf.net/p/oorexx/code-0/main/branches/5.0.0   -m "Creating 
code branch 5.0.0 to prepare release."


On 13.12.2022 12:51, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:


Not being sure what the proper sequence and steps are to create and release ooRexx 5.0.0, so here 
a few items that come to mind:


- create a branch/5.0.0 from trunk if no show-stopper errors show up on Jenkins

- change the version information from ooRexx to indicate the version is a 
release version

- question: possibly change the date in the documentation PDF files?

- create the release ooRexx 5.0.0 installation packages from branch/5.0.0

- move the branch/5.0.0 to releases/5.0.0

- upload installation packages to a new staged directory "files/oorexx/5.0.0"

- update the trackers to reflect the release 5.0.0 took place

- change the attribute for each installation package to indicate for which operating system it got 
built (Windows, Mac, various Linuxes): this will cause a link to appear on the web page that 
allows for downloading the proper version depending on the operating system used to get to the 
Sourceforge website


- change the name of the directory on Sourceforge that receives the current builds from trunk 
(e.g. rename from "5.0.0beta" to "5++beta" or the like)


- communicate the availability of the ooRexx 5.0.0 release in all possible 
channels

Suggestion for a time table:

  * t0: if the tests on Jenkins show no show-stopper errors from the latest 
trunk, then create the
branch: ASAP
  * t1: apply the necessary changes in the branch (version information update, 
release information
update):  < =(t0+7 days)
  * t2: create the installation packages from the branch and upload them to a 
staged directory
"5.0.0": after a week (t1+1)
  * t3: communicate the availability: t2+1

Is there anything missing?

---

ad ooRexx releases thereafter:

- if possible let us use a "rolling release" [1] scheme

- there should be at least one release per year before the International Rexx symposium, the 
RexxLA owner's yearly conference on Rexx related technologies, a premier opportunity to report on 
new abilities, features of ooRexx by anyone who is able and willing to do so


- in between any time new samples, new documentation gets added and the tests do not exhibit any 
show stopper bugs


- in between any time new features get added on any platform and the tests do not exhibit any show 
stopper bugs


What do you think?

---rony

[1] 

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx serviced by the Sourceforge website

[CV Bruce]

+1. What’s the old saying about perfection being the enemy of good enough?

Sent by Magic!

> On Dec 14, 2022, at 5:34 AM, Mike Cowlishaw  wrote:
> 
> I fear that if we just keep discussing things that need to be done another
> 10 years will pass.
> 
> Surely the priority here is to get 5.0 out there for most platforms, and
> worry about loose ends afterwards?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at] 
>> Sent: 14 December 2022 13:24
>> To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx 
>> serviced by the Sourceforge website
>> 
>> On 13.12.2022 16:59, P.O. Jonsson wrote:
 This was my point: currently all Apple users get outdated not 
 workable ooRexx by the official ooRexx site. ALLl official 
>> versions 
 of ooRexx for macOS are broken and do not install, not the 
>> 32 bit and 
 not the 64 bit version of ooRexx 4. We do not currently have ANY 
 official version of ooRexx that install with ANY Mac (Intel or 
 M1/ARM) running OS X El Capitan (2015) (OS X 10.11) or newer. This 
 problem is 7 years old :-(
>>> Dear Rony, I take that back, actually the official 64 bit 
>> version DOES work, and installs to /opt. I think this was my 
>> tinkering way back then. But /opt is a hidden folder on macOS 
>> so not so easy to find back once installed.
>>> 
>>> You still need to set PATH=/opt/ooRexx/bin:$PATH (and 
>> DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/ooRexx/lib/ooRexx) to make it run and 
>> there is no uninstaller. But changing the pointer to 64 bit 
>> instead of 32 bit would be a good thing, also if the 4.1.2 is 
>> now 10 years old (September 2012).
>> 
>> Just tried it from my Mac and got as download offered a "4.0 
>> all" zip, which is also neither helpful nor useful for Apple 
>> users. So it is really time to get a nice, working and 
>> up-to-date version of ooRexx to the Apple table ...
>> 
>> ---rony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel


___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx serviced by the Sourceforge website

[P. O. Jonsson]


I fully agree

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 14.12.2022 um 14:34 schrieb Mike Cowlishaw :
> 
> I fear that if we just keep discussing things that need to be done another
> 10 years will pass.
> 
> Surely the priority here is to get 5.0 out there for most platforms, and
> worry about loose ends afterwards?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at] 
>> Sent: 14 December 2022 13:24
>> To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx 
>> serviced by the Sourceforge website
>> 
>> On 13.12.2022 16:59, P.O. Jonsson wrote:
 This was my point: currently all Apple users get outdated not 
 workable ooRexx by the official ooRexx site. ALLl official 
>> versions 
 of ooRexx for macOS are broken and do not install, not the 
>> 32 bit and 
 not the 64 bit version of ooRexx 4. We do not currently have ANY 
 official version of ooRexx that install with ANY Mac (Intel or 
 M1/ARM) running OS X El Capitan (2015) (OS X 10.11) or newer. This 
 problem is 7 years old :-(
>>> Dear Rony, I take that back, actually the official 64 bit 
>> version DOES work, and installs to /opt. I think this was my 
>> tinkering way back then. But /opt is a hidden folder on macOS 
>> so not so easy to find back once installed.
>>> 
>>> You still need to set PATH=/opt/ooRexx/bin:$PATH (and 
>> DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/ooRexx/lib/ooRexx) to make it run and 
>> there is no uninstaller. But changing the pointer to 64 bit 
>> instead of 32 bit would be a good thing, also if the 4.1.2 is 
>> now 10 years old (September 2012).
>> 
>> Just tried it from my Mac and got as download offered a "4.0 
>> all" zip, which is also neither helpful nor useful for Apple 
>> users. So it is really time to get a nice, working and 
>> up-to-date version of ooRexx to the Apple table ...
>> 
>> ---rony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx serviced by the Sourceforge website

[Mike Cowlishaw]

I fear that if we just keep discussing things that need to be done another
10 years will pass.

Surely the priority here is to get 5.0 out there for most platforms, and
worry about loose ends afterwards?

Mike
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at] 
> Sent: 14 December 2022 13:24
> To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx 
> serviced by the Sourceforge website
> 
> On 13.12.2022 16:59, P.O. Jonsson wrote:
> >> This was my point: currently all Apple users get outdated not 
> >> workable ooRexx by the official ooRexx site. ALLl official 
> versions 
> >> of ooRexx for macOS are broken and do not install, not the 
> 32 bit and 
> >> not the 64 bit version of ooRexx 4. We do not currently have ANY 
> >> official version of ooRexx that install with ANY Mac (Intel or 
> >> M1/ARM) running OS X El Capitan (2015) (OS X 10.11) or newer. This 
> >> problem is 7 years old :-(
> > Dear Rony, I take that back, actually the official 64 bit 
> version DOES work, and installs to /opt. I think this was my 
> tinkering way back then. But /opt is a hidden folder on macOS 
>  so not so easy to find back once installed.
> >
> > You still need to set PATH=/opt/ooRexx/bin:$PATH (and 
> DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/ooRexx/lib/ooRexx) to make it run and 
> there is no uninstaller. But changing the pointer to 64 bit 
> instead of 32 bit would be a good thing, also if the 4.1.2 is 
> now 10 years old (September 2012).
> 
> Just tried it from my Mac and got as download offered a "4.0 
> all" zip, which is also neither helpful nor useful for Apple 
> users. So it is really time to get a nice, working and 
> up-to-date version of ooRexx to the Apple table ...
> 
> ---rony



___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Wrong Apple version of ooRexx serviced by the Sourceforge website

[Rony G. Flatscher]

On 13.12.2022 16:59, P.O. Jonsson wrote:

This was my point: currently all Apple users get outdated not workable ooRexx 
by the official ooRexx site. ALLl official versions of ooRexx for macOS are 
broken and do not install, not the 32 bit and not the 64 bit version of ooRexx 
4. We do not currently have ANY official version of ooRexx that install with 
ANY Mac (Intel or M1/ARM) running OS X El Capitan (2015) (OS X 10.11) or newer. 
This problem is 7 years old :-(

Dear Rony, I take that back, actually the official 64 bit version DOES work, 
and installs to /opt. I think this was my tinkering way back then. But /opt is 
a hidden folder on macOS  so not so easy to find back once installed.

You still need to set PATH=/opt/ooRexx/bin:$PATH (and 
DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/ooRexx/lib/ooRexx) to make it run and there is no 
uninstaller. But changing the pointer to 64 bit instead of 32 bit would be a 
good thing, also if the 4.1.2 is now 10 years old (September 2012).


Just tried it from my Mac and got as download offered a "4.0 all" zip, which is also neither helpful 
nor useful for Apple users. So it is really time to get a nice, working and up-to-date version of 
ooRexx to the Apple table ...


---rony




___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel