Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> > Don't you also have to ensure rxapi is stopped/started when switching > between different versions? > I guess you're right. Sure, I have my killrxapi batch file available all the time, but I really almost never (have to) use it. That may be because there's only very little change happening

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Don't you also have to ensure rxapi is stopped/started when switching between different versions? Gil On 4/12/2020 6:35 AM, Erich Steinböck wrote: provide Linux installers for an *alternative installation location* for those who really need it, say to /opt or /usr/local/ rather

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> > provide Linux installers for an *alternative installation location* for > those who really need it, say to /opt or /usr/local/ rather than to /usr? > While I agree that our installers should not install to /usr but to /usr/local instead (which I think was what Enrico suggests and what CMake

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

I just wanted to sum this point up (rollback of update-alternatives in 1250 and 12051): I found the reason why I could not replace newer build with older ones on CentOS and fixed it. I can now reproduce what Enrico also confirmed. I can install/uninstall/reinstall any version of ooRexx from

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> Am 09.04.2020 um 00:01 schrieb Rick McGuire : > > > This was a change on my proposal, ooRexx5.0.0 is somewhat over specified and > will be incorrect as soon as ooRexx 5.0.1 arrives. ooRexx5 is sufficient to > separate it from ooRexx 4. > > this should probably be at least 2 digits, as a

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:47 PM P.O. Jonsson wrote: > Dear René, > > This was a change on my proposal, ooRexx5.0.0 is somewhat over specified > and will be incorrect as soon as ooRexx 5.0.1 arrives. ooRexx5 is > sufficient to separate it from ooRexx 4. > this should probably be at least 2

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Ah ok - that is fine with me. René. > On 8 Apr 2020, at 23:46, P.O. Jonsson wrote: > > Dear René, > > This was a change on my proposal, ooRexx5.0.0 is somewhat over specified and > will be incorrect as soon as ooRexx 5.0.1 arrives. ooRexx5 is sufficient to > separate it from ooRexx 4. > >

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Dear René, This was a change on my proposal, ooRexx5.0.0 is somewhat over specified and will be incorrect as soon as ooRexx 5.0.1 arrives. ooRexx5 is sufficient to separate it from ooRexx 4. If you try one of the dmg installers I have built here

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

I have funny stuff going on also: my MacOSX build kept telling me that it was from June 2019 (which might be the last time I built on this particular mac). Checking up on it, I found that it now installs in ~/Applications/ooRexx5 instead of ~/Applications/ooRexx5.0.0 No big deal but a tad

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

@Enrico: did you use the rexx -v to confirm the version? For both versions? If so I have a rotten build :-( Hälsningar/Regards/Grüsse, P.O. Jonsson oor...@jonases.se > Am 08.04.2020 um 17:48 schrieb Enrico Sorichetti via Oorexx-devel > : > > Going back and forth between builds 12050 and

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Going back and forth between builds 12050 and 12054 Did not cause any problems on centos 8 Also using the —replacefiles clause lets You install over an existing installation without uninstalling the previous one After that the rpm -e must be qualified And uninstalling the older only

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

All my local builds are here Hälsningar/Regards/Grüsse, P.O. Jonsson oor...@jonases.se > Am 08.04.2020 um 16:34 schrieb Erich Steinböck : > > Try installing an older build (rpm module) after removing the newer build

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> > Try installing an older build (rpm module) after removing the newer build I don't think I can as the two RPM-based slaves CentOS and SLES390 I have access to don't have full sudo access. Enrico, can you maybe test what P.O. asks for? ___

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Hi, It works just fine for me as well to replace and OLDER version with a NEWER version incrementally (this is what the Jenkins slaves do as well). Furthermore building from source and installing always work, irrespective of version. The problem only surfaces when you use and older rpm module

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Hi P.O., you may have copies of old builds hanging around, or build from an outdated SVN working copy. Our build machine builds fine on all slaves, including the CentOS slave, and uploads packages with the correct SVN build numbers. (see the console log of the sourceforge-upload job).

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Compare to this, this is really weird (my highlighting) [osboxes@fedora31 ~]$ rexx -v Open Object Rexx Version 5.0.0 r12054 Build date: Apr 7 2020 Addressing mode: 64 Copyright (c) 1995, 2004 IBM Corporation. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2005-2020 Rexx Language Association. All rights

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> > The thing with not being able to revert to an older version of ooRexx is a > murkier business. I do not think it is related to this change, I just had not > noticed since I always build a newer version. > This is a just a thought, but is there ANY possibility that rexx -v reports the

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

Dear Erich, > The roll back was done with a simple svn merge -c -11900,-11899 . > So I'd assume it to be correct .. can you please specify which change you > think was rolled back incorrectly? > I have tried this out on CentOS and the reason I see 5.0.0-1 instead of 5.0.0-12054 is that lines

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> Am 07.04.2020 um 15:47 schrieb Erich Steinböck : > > I think some changes introduced at a later stage was mistakenly removed by > that rollback > Should not some of these settings be restored? > The roll back was done with a simple svn merge -c -11900,-11899 . > So I'd assume it to be correct

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Changes in rev 12051

> > I think some changes introduced at a later stage was mistakenly removed by > that rollback > Should not some of these settings be restored? > The roll back was done with a simple svn merge -c -11900,-11899 . So I'd assume it to be correct .. can you please specify which change you think was