and
repeatable, then they are ready for deploy as a buildbot.
I am wary of steps that include building and deploying patched
software outside of this process.
EPM is currently in this category. What is our best solution for EPM?
1. find a dependency that can be repeatably loaded
, then they are ready for deploy as a buildbot.
I am wary of steps that include building and deploying patched
software outside of this process.
EPM is currently in this category. What is our best solution for EPM?
1. find a dependency that can be repeatably loaded in the dependencies
list
2. create
Am 13.12.11 08:14, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
Hi Raphael,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:41:15AM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
Hi at all
I beleve I miss same information. My configure says:
configure: error: no. Install ESP Package Manager
(www.easysw.com/epm) and/or specify the path
(www.easysw.com/epm) and/or specify the path to the right epm
I was installing a EPM over MacPorts, and point it --with-epm, but
it does not work. Can sameone help me.
not sure if it will work for you, but I downloaded EPM 3.7 from
http://www.epmhome.org/software.php
The problem is, I can't realy
: error: no. Install ESP Package Manager
(www.easysw.com/epm) and/or specify the path to the right epm
I was installing a EPM over MacPorts, and point it --with-epm, but
it does not work. Can sameone help me.
not sure if it will work for you, but I downloaded EPM 3.7 from
http://www.epmhome.org
: error: no. Install ESP Package Manager
(www.easysw.com/epm) and/or specify the path to the right epm
I was installing a EPM over MacPorts, and point it --with-epm, but
it does not work. Can sameone help me.
not sure if it will work for you, but I downloaded EPM 3.7 from
http://www.epmhome.org
Hi at all
I beleve I miss same information. My configure says:
configure: error: no. Install ESP Package Manager (www.easysw.com/epm)
and/or specify the path to the right epm
I was installing a EPM over MacPorts, and point it --with-epm, but it
does not work. Can sameone help me
Hi Raphael,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:41:15AM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
Hi at all
I beleve I miss same information. My configure says:
configure: error: no. Install ESP Package Manager
(www.easysw.com/epm) and/or specify the path to the right epm
I was installing a EPM over
On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
(http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
(rpm based
-Haile wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
(http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
(rpm based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm
the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no special
configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the configure step and
switched back to rpm. I will check this but i assume i will run in the
same problems as Ariel then.
Juergen
On 11/23/11 1:58 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
Hi Jürgen,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no
special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the
configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i
assume i will run
On 11/23/11 2:47 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hi Jürgen,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no
special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the
configure step and switched back to rpm. I
Hi,
i would like to gave a short update.
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
(http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
(rpm based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters
Le 22 nov. 11 à 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
Hi,
Hi,
i would like to gave a short update.
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://
www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm
based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm packages
Hmmm ...
Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky.
Unfortunately portable packagers seem not
to be too common anymore.
Pedro.
--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
possible to use
a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even obsolete.
But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the 3.7 epm and the
patches we have because they are very specific for OOo.
I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a
little bit
process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's possible to
use a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even
obsolete. But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the
3.7 epm and the patches we have because they are very specific for
OOo.
I don't think so
seem not
to be too common anymore.
the point is simply that we have to understand the whole
packaging
process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's
possible to use
a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or
even obsolete.
But in this case it seems that we have
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
(http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
(rpm based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters
Hi Michael,
Le 22 nov. 11 à 22:25, Michael Stahl a écrit :
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://
www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm
based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm packages
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
(http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
(rpm based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm
@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
is it correct? Should we remove them?
epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
try BSD, etc).
Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
--with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format=installed rpm
On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i
am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have
built with a system epm on a Linux system?
a short update on this topic. I was able to build an office
Hi,
i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i
am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have
built with a system epm on a Linux system?
Juergen
On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hello Maho,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
is it correct? Should we remove them?
epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages
FWIW,
The problem we are seeing in FreeBSD is a bit weird, and I
think it has to do with the build environment (AKA ports
tree).
When built inside the ports tree, EPM and agg get built. We
are not not turning them on, they just build.
There are other issues: FreeBSD's gbuild stuff
On 11/15/11 5:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hello Maho,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
is it correct? Should we remove them
Hi Jürgen,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 05:03:37PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hello Maho,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo
On 11/10/11 7:56 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
Am 10.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't understand why you have
checked in it at all. The update if necessary could have been done at a
later time as well.
You seem to misunderstand what Pedro did.
No need to apologize,
OOo (or AOO? ,looks like a tie from here), is a huge monster
and it's difficult to keep up with all the changes that
are in progress !
best regards,
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/11/11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/10/11 7:56 PM, Mathias Bauer
wrote:
Am 10.11.2011 16:52,
it would make sense if we follow all the same rules.
Juergen
I did notice it's still getting built on our port and
I have to look at why. I think when I attempt to build
AOOo from the tarball it doesn't get built but there
are other ugly issues with icu there.
About epm I don't know, I guess we
but there
are other ugly issues with icu there.
About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
directory now.
Pedro.
--- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATAm...@apache.org
wrote:
From: Maho NAKATAm...@apache.org
Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
issues with icu there.
About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
directory now.
Pedro.
--- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATAm...@apache.org
wrote:
From: Maho NAKATAm...@apache.org
Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: p...@apache.org
Date: Wednesday
Hi Jürgen;
--- On Thu, 11/10/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:
my main concern here is why you haven't updated the tar
file with a newer version and used the same mechanism
as for all other 3rd party libs.
There has never been any tarball for this. Maybe we should
move
Am 10.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't understand why you have
checked in it at all. The update if necessary could have been done at a
later time as well.
You seem to misunderstand what Pedro did. agg was always part of the
source tree.
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
is it correct? Should we remove them?
thanks
Nakata Maho
but there
are other ugly issues with icu there.
About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
directory now.
Pedro.
--- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATA m...@apache.org wrote:
From: Maho NAKATA m...@apache.org
Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc
From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
Subject: Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:43:19 -0800 (PST)
I personally didn't plan to remove agg. I like it as
option and license wise it's OK so I have no pland to
remove it, at least for now.
I see.
I did notice it's
Hello Maho,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
is it correct? Should we remove them?
epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
try BSD, etc).
Now
Hi Maho,
Le 10 nov. 11 à 01:47, Maho NAKATA a écrit :
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that agg and epm are
still in svn repo. is it correct? Should we remove them?
If this can help, I know how to build Debian archives using dh_make
(this is the true debian way
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:16:03 +0200, Mathias Bauer
mathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote:
Moin,
...
I committed a patch that enables EPM as installed in the system. Of
course that makes EPM a build requirement.
Hmmm ... of course some of us don't use linux and create our own
packages without EPM
On 29.08.2011 15:45, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:16:03 +0200, Mathias Bauer
mathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote:
Moin,
...
I committed a patch that enables EPM as installed in the system. Of
course that makes EPM a build requirement.
Hmmm ... of course some of us don't use linux
--- On Mon, 8/29/11, Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote:
...
On Linux it always was needed in OOo, either from system or
- in case
BUILD_EPM=YES - from the ooo module epm. If you want to do
it differently, send patches. :-)
If I ever work on the build system, it will be very
Am 29.08.2011 17:50, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
--- On Mon, 8/29/11, Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote:
...
On Linux it always was needed in OOo, either from system or
- in case
BUILD_EPM=YES - from the ooo module epm. If you want to do
it differently, send patches. :-)
If I
45 matches
Mail list logo
