Hi Stephan, I have been providing MacOSX PPC/Intel builds also FreeBSD ports, so I'm interested in your e-mail. Esp, MacOSX Intel builds, we can compare them directly very easily.
I'd like to compare build logs with Hamburg environment and mine. I asked MH about it before and rejected http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=51332 . I was really helped by Pavel Janik's build logs. As told by Caloan, his chroot enviromnet is really useful. http://blogs.linux.ie/caolan/2006/08/02/sinhala-ooo/ http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/ooocvs/makefc3chroot Martin H: > so I consider the question functional differences as an essential one. Yes. I neve know that "register and user survey" is not supported by my packages. I was told Martin Damboldt about it. No PPC users registerd and participated to user survey. > You know that we > do at other occasion the dicussion "when is an OpenOffice.org build an > original OpenOffice.org (tm) build", so I consider the question > functional differences as an essential one. Non Hamburg build can be a "official build". My 3.0.0 MacOSX Intel package has been released as official. Of course, there are some differences between yours and mine. VirtualBox environment might not be not useful as it may be slower than original one, waste some build time by the emulation. I only know about vmware, and it supports only 2 processors. Building time of OOo is one of the big headache, so we'd like to use a native enviroment. Best, From: Stephan Bergmann <stephan.bergm...@sun.com> Subject: [dev] buildbot builds vs standard builds Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:00:10 +0100 > During FOSDEM, Mechtilde told me about a problem the QA community is > experiencing, namely that buildbot builds (of CWSs) are quite > different functionality-wise from the standard builds (of milestones > and releases, often done by Sun Hamburg Release Engineering). Those > differences are especially apparent in Base, Mechtilde told me. This > problem in some cases prevents easy testing of a CWS by the QA > community, or even thorough testing of a CWS in real life by replacing > a standard OOo build with a buildbot CWS build in (semi-)production > use. > > I would assume there are three factors that cause the variance in > functionality. For one, Sun Hamburg uses a setsolar build environment > instead of the configure build environment used by everybody else > (incl. buildbots); what the configure switches corresponding to the > setsolar build environment would look like is more or less directly > codified in ooo/trunk/solenv/config/sdev300.ini. For another, even if > Sun Hamburg used a configure build environment, I assume that many > buildbots use additional configure switches that influence the > functionality of the resulting OOo. Like when there is a problem > building OOo on a given buildbot, and that problem can be worked > around with some configure switch, that switch is simply used. That > way, I would not be surprised if different buildbots even used > different sets of configure switches. (I do not know where to easily > look up which buildbot uses which switches, so I did not bother to > check.) > > A third factor might be that different build machines have different > versions of compilers and linkers installed, and different versions of > header files that OOo code includes or different versions of system > libraries that OOo code links against. (By the way, the Sun Hamburg > setsolar environment almost completely hides this by providing a > centrally managed baseline build environment independent of the > machine one is building on.) I would assume that this has much less > influence on the observed variance than the configure switches, > however. > > So, in an ideal world, for all the important platforms for which we > provide standard builds we should also provide buildbots that produce > builds that are (close to) identical functionality-wise to the > standard ones. I would love to see someone pick up on this, > presumably from the Sun Hamburg infrastructure group. Niels? > Anybody? As I understood Mechtilde, she would be happy to help in > QAing the processes of getting the buidbots in shape, like testing > whether the resulting builds are good enough for practical purposes. > > -Stephan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org > > > >
pgpJBZI6EzPs8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
