Re: [BUILD] EPM for building packages - was [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On 1/4/12 11:09 PM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 1/4/2012 11:44 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: I am trying to create the buildbots so that there is now magical secret sauce to keep them working. Thus, I am trying to create a 'recipe' for creating the build machine which includes: * vanilla version of an OS (Ubuntu 10.04 as a starting point for buildbots so far) * a set of dependencies (which I am currently creating as a set of apt-get commands for the machine) * a script for running the build (which is translated into the buildbot config file) I practice these on my machine and once they are stable 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 in the dependencies list 2. create a configure option of --with-EPM-path=URL and download and build a patched EPM during the build like the existing option of --with-epm-url, for instance seriously, I got it now, and I'm implementing this into buildbot. I think this needs to be added into the ./configure --help it is already listed in configure --help. Juergen A. I know I have not included the option of prebuilding the patched EPM - this is intentional, as this leads to highly customized and non-reproducable build machines, so I think that is a bad course to follow. thoughts?? A. On 1/2/2012 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot ended with a system epm. IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable, but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer snapshot. Regards
Re: [BUILD] EPM for building packages - was [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On 1/4/2012 11:44 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: I am trying to create the buildbots so that there is now magical secret sauce to keep them working. Thus, I am trying to create a 'recipe' for creating the build machine which includes: * vanilla version of an OS (Ubuntu 10.04 as a starting point for buildbots so far) * a set of dependencies (which I am currently creating as a set of apt-get commands for the machine) * a script for running the build (which is translated into the buildbot config file) I practice these on my machine and once they are stable 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 in the dependencies list 2. create a configure option of --with-EPM-path=URL and download and build a patched EPM during the build like the existing option of --with-epm-url, for instance seriously, I got it now, and I'm implementing this into buildbot. I think this needs to be added into the ./configure --help A. I know I have not included the option of prebuilding the patched EPM - this is intentional, as this leads to highly customized and non-reproducable build machines, so I think that is a bad course to follow. thoughts?? A. On 1/2/2012 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot ended with a system epm. IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable, but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer snapshot. Regards -- Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect OracleCorporate Architecture Group Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
Re: [BUILD] I miss epm
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 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 download it. Even I try to get the 3.7, the 4.2 is downloaded. Can sameone upload the 3.7 samewhere? Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [BUILD] I miss epm
Am 13.12.11 09:28, schrieb Raphael Bircher: 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 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 download it. Even I try to get the 3.7, the 4.2 is downloaded. Can sameone upload the 3.7 samewhere? Ok, I got one, from http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7/ -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [BUILD] I miss epm
Am 13.12.11 09:35, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Am 13.12.11 09:28, schrieb Raphael Bircher: 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 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 download it. Even I try to get the 3.7, the 4.2 is downloaded. Can sameone upload the 3.7 samewhere? Ok, I got one, from http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7/ So it works, but it would be great to have a patched version of the source on Apache-Extras or elsewhere. -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [BUILD] I miss epm
On 12/13/11 9:35 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote: Am 13.12.11 09:28, schrieb Raphael Bircher: 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 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 download it. Even I try to get the 3.7, the 4.2 is downloaded. Can sameone upload the 3.7 samewhere? Ok, I got one, from http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7/ it seems that you have missed the information that we still need our patches for epm and we have to stick with version 3.7 for now. configure --help provides a url where you can download the sources of epm and which can be used with the --with-epm-url switch. Alternatively you can provide a patched version of epm in your path. But you have to ensure that it is a patched version and of course it doesn't make sense to install this patched epm system wide. Juergen
[BUILD] I miss epm
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. Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [BUILD] I miss epm
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 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 applied the patch http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/raw-file/c904c1944462/epm/epm-3.7.patch build it, and configure with --with-epm=/home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-3.7/INST/bin/epm On Fedora only the EPM 3.7 with the OOo patch worked. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpNY2YJMh0xJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package rpm-build with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 21 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used? When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst --output-dir RPMS -v2 21 | and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that epm trigger this) Building RPM binary distribution... /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
and of course rpmbuild would understand the parameters --bb --buildroot= mmh, strange i will check it ones more and will try to understand why rpm is called instead of rpmbuild. Any hints are welcome. Juergen On 11/23/11 1:54 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: 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). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package rpm-build with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 21 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used? When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst --output-dir RPMS -v2 21 | and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that epm trigger this) Building RPM binary distribution... /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 wrote: and of course rpmbuild would understand the parameters --bb --buildroot= mmh, strange i will check it ones more and will try to understand why rpm is called instead of rpmbuild. Any hints are welcome. Juergen On 11/23/11 1:54 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: 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). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package rpm-build with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 21 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used? When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst --output-dir RPMS -v2 21 | and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that epm trigger this) Building RPM binary distribution... /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 in the same problems as Ariel then. you're right, you must have rpmbuild installed according to epm's configure.in: if test x$RPMBUILD != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, $RPMBUILD) AC_DEFINE(EPM_RPMTOPDIR) else if test x$RPM != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, $RPM) else AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, rpm) fi fi yesterday I was trying to debug epm to see how it works, just in case anyone tries this, --enable-debug is useless because binaries are stripped when installed, you have to hack Makefile.am and remove all the lines invoking $(STRIP). Packaging debs with epm 4.2 is also broken here on Fedora16: Success: Executed LD_PRELOAD=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6/bin/getuid.so /home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-4.2/INST/bin/epm -f deb ooobasis3.4-ogltrans /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_OGLTrans.lst --output-dir DEBS -v9 21 | successfully! Moved directory from /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress to /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_witherror Removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_60551321544337 *** ERROR: More than one new package in directory /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS ( /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64 /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64.deb) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) *** Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpVSy7QDaq9c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
On 11/23/11 2:47 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Jürgen, On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i assume i will run in the same problems as Ariel then. you're right, you must have rpmbuild installed according to epm's configure.in: if test x$RPMBUILD != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, $RPMBUILD) AC_DEFINE(EPM_RPMTOPDIR) else if test x$RPM != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, $RPM) else AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, rpm) fi fi i solved this, after a rebuild of epm it worked But i got the same error as you now yesterday I was trying to debug epm to see how it works, just in case anyone tries this, --enable-debug is useless because binaries are stripped when installed, you have to hack Makefile.am and remove all the lines invoking $(STRIP). Packaging debs with epm 4.2 is also broken here on Fedora16: Success: Executed LD_PRELOAD=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6/bin/getuid.so /home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-4.2/INST/bin/epm -f deb ooobasis3.4-ogltrans /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_OGLTrans.lst --output-dir DEBS -v9 21 | successfully! Moved directory from /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress to /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_witherror Removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_60551321544337 *** ERROR: More than one new package in directory /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS ( /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64 /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64.deb) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) *** disable the packagepool process In instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst look for POOLPRODUCT=1 and set it to 0. Juergen Regards
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I assume there is still some room for improvements ones the process is understand completely. But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and not part of a binary release or a source release. The idea is to download the source directly from the homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm can be specified directly with the configure switch -with-epm. Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea that help us to move forward. Juergen On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: 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 on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I remember an issue caused by rpmbuild (or buildrpm maybe) missing. Maybe you hit it ? FYI, the rpm thing is detected at configure time Eric -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM Hi Juergen; I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM and has a better license: http://www.openpkg.net/ And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those packagers work with the new pkgng format. Cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM 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 that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I assume there is still some room for improvements ones the process is understand completely. But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and not part of a binary release or a source release. The idea is to download the source directly from the homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm can be specified directly with the configure switch -with-epm. Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea that help us to move forward. Juergen On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: 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 on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi Pedro, On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers 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 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 because we can concentrate on one product only. In the past all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this packaging stuff ... Juergen Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org wrote: From: Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM Hi Juergen; I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM and has a better license: http://www.openpkg.net/ And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those packagers work with the new pkgng format. Cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM 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 that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I assume there is still some room for improvements ones the process is understand completely. But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and not part of a binary release or a source release. The idea is to download the source directly from the homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm can be specified directly with the configure switch -with-epm. Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea that help us to move forward. Juergen On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: 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 on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Le 22 nov. 11 à 14:33, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit : Hi Pedro, On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers 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 to stick with the 3.7 epm and the patches we have because they are very specific for OOo. I don't think so : system epm *should* work out of the box, if not, we need to fix the issue. I'll try a build tonight on Linux, and if broken, I'll have a look. I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. Sure. That's exactly what I did with OOo4Kids. Most of the options are given at configure time. The result is environment variables. At the end, the packaging is done using perl scripts, all located in solenv/bin. setup_native will produce the Control files, and only sysui has another process, to build the menu entries. In the past all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this packaging stuff ... I'd suggest to document it on the wiki. We are several to know well the build process on this list. What is your issue ? Do you have a log ? Lat but not least, I really think we should make IRC ClassRoom, and invite newcomers to try building Apache OpenOffice.org (sorry, I'll keep the .org) : 10 or + builders, means the most little issue is immediately detected, and often, directly fixed. Eric
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Well ... We need something that works now and basically something that will produce RPMs. Having something to do this is handy but should not a requirement for building. I think with just having it disabled by default we comply with the ASF policies. All other packages that I know of just have an installation script and leave the packaging for someone else to do: for FreeBSD we use a script that calls tar (it's more portable than cp), and then we have some support in the ports tree to package that stuff automatically. Hmm... since you are apparently planning to further edit fetch_tarballs.sh, perhaps you can test my update to that script? (attached). cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi Pedro, On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers 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 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 because we can concentrate on one product only. In the past all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this packaging stuff ... Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package rpm-build with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. IIRC i once changed configure to complain if you have a /bin/rpm that cannot build and no rpmbuild, perhaps that check bitrotted... [ i have no idea why we use a patched epm, or whether an unpatched epm would work ] regards, michael
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package rpm-build with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. Thanks, I didn't remember the exact name :) [ i have no idea why we use a patched epm, or whether an unpatched epm would work ] There is a beginning of answer in main/solenv/bin/ make_installer.pl , around line 1642 + more information in main/solenv/modules/installer/epmfile.pm (around line 859) Regards, Eric -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package rpm-build with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 21 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpWyV8SIjqJb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
On 11/15/11 7:23 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: 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. 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 and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build. IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency. i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier, correct? so so. I took already downloaded the source, applied the patch and installed in ~/bin because... Did you have tried the system epm tool? ... there is no epm in Fedora repositories, Ubuntu seems to have an epm package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=epm ok, fedora is on my list of the systems (rpm based) to test, good to know that no epm is available in the repositories. Or better not good to know :-( I will test it on fedora with a fresh downloaded epm from the webpage. But i have to setup a build env on fedora first. If you are interested in testing it as well, i can share my patch. I was able to build on Ubuntu with the system epm 4.2. Well i have not finally tested the debs but will do so asap. The whole packaging process is not really easy to understand ;-) It takes some time... Juergen but OOo patch looks non trivial, a vanilla epm from http://www.epmhome.org/software.php or a system one may not work as expected. Regards
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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 on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
[CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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 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 and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build. IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency. i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier, correct? Did you have tried the system epm tool? Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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 was not really maintained or kept up to date by SUN and the FreeBSD port does some *ugly* hacks to get things to build. I am trying to fix those first with some (slow) success. Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/15/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo. To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 11:03 AM 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 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 and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build. IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency. i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier, correct? Did you have tried the system epm tool? Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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? 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 and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build. IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency. i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier, correct? Did you have tried the system epm tool? to be more precise, my question is related to Ariel's answer Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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. 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 and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build. IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency. i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier, correct? so so. I took already downloaded the source, applied the patch and installed in ~/bin because... Did you have tried the system epm tool? ... there is no epm in Fedora repositories, Ubuntu seems to have an epm package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=epm but OOo patch looks non trivial, a vanilla epm from http://www.epmhome.org/software.php or a system one may not work as expected. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpL5arTHY8bF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 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. agg was always part of the source tree. IIRC Pedro tried to remove it, but then canvas couldn't be built anymore. So he at least updated it as much as possible. IMHO a good idea. ups, indeed i really thought it was handled as all the other external libs. Very bad from me that i haven't double checked my assumption before a wrote my comment. I should have been more careful. @Pedro, i apologize for my not correct comment and i very much appreciate your work. Maybe i had a bad day as well because some of the work on IP clearance we currently have to do is more than boring. Sorry Pedro Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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, 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. IIRC Pedro tried to remove it, but then canvas couldn't be built anymore. So he at least updated it as much as possible. IMHO a good idea. ups, indeed i really thought it was handled as all the other external libs. Very bad from me that i haven't double checked my assumption before a wrote my comment. I should have been more careful. @Pedro, i apologize for my not correct comment and i very much appreciate your work. Maybe i had a bad day as well because some of the work on IP clearance we currently have to do is more than boring. Sorry Pedro Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
On 11/10/11 2:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hi Maho; 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. well the question really is why you have checked it in this way and has disabled it directly afterwards. That doesn't make any sense and it was counterproductive from my pov. It was initially handled as all other 3rd party modules and we could have dropped it and could have kept the option to use it (if somebody wants) with the option --with-system-agg. Default would be to disable it. I think 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 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, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM 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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Hello Jürgen; I value your feedback on this issue, and I will explain: First of all agg as it is/was is not an IP threat and, in general, the rules on how to deal with all the other dependencies were not in place when I did the update anyways. 1) I updated it to version 2.4: this is the last version under a BSD license. It was supported by the internal build system so I doubt anyone complains about having it up to date. 2) I disabled it by default simply because it's not really used in the build. I doubt anyone complains about having off by default something that is not used. I also learned about, and killed, a header that supported the GPC extension which is not AL2 compatible, I cannot say this has brought any benefit at all but there's nothing counterproductive as agg was never really productive. Now about --enable-system-agg; this option is a no-op as all linux/BSD distributions, that I know of, carry version 2.5 of agg which is explicitly prohibited in OOo. This was done by SUN, not by me, perhaps because it's GPL'd now or maybe do to API changes, but it doesn't look like it. I kept agg around because I think it's important to keep the last BSD-licensed version in SVN (if we remove it we can bring it back anytime) and because it may find some uses elsewhere (anyone in need of a C++ rendering engine, like for SVG? ;-) ). Further cleanage of the configure script (which I hate to manipulate to tell you the truth) or even removing agg is relatively easy. Pedro. --- On Thu, 11/10/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: wrote: Hi Maho; 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. well the question really is why you have checked it in this way and has disabled it directly afterwards. That doesn't make any sense and it was counterproductive from my pov. It was initially handled as all other 3rd party modules and we could have dropped it and could have kept the option to use it (if somebody wants) with the option --with-system-agg. Default would be to disable it. I think 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 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, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM 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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
On 11/10/11 4:09 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hello Jürgen; I value your feedback on this issue, and I will explain: First of all agg as it is/was is not an IP threat and, in general, the rules on how to deal with all the other dependencies were not in place when I did the update anyways. 1) I updated it to version 2.4: this is the last version under a BSD license. It was supported by the internal build system so I doubt anyone complains about having it up to date. 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. 2) I disabled it by default simply because it's not really used in the build. I doubt anyone complains about having off by default something that is not used. I also learned about, and killed, a header that supported the GPC extension which is not AL2 compatible, I cannot say this has brought any benefit at all but there's nothing counterproductive as agg was never really productive. 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. Now about --enable-system-agg; this option is a no-op as all linux/BSD distributions, that I know of, carry version 2.5 of agg which is explicitly prohibited in OOo. This was done by SUN, not by me, perhaps because it's GPL'd now or maybe do to API changes, but it doesn't look like it. why not analyzing if possible to use it? As it is optional (default=disabled) anyway it would be much easier. I kept agg around because I think it's important to keep the last BSD-licensed version in SVN (if we remove it we can bring it back anytime) and because it may find some uses elsewhere (anyone in need of a C++ rendering engine, like for SVG? ;-) ). Further cleanage of the configure script (which I hate to manipulate to tell you the truth) or even removing agg is relatively easy. you can always ask if others can help. I can think also about much more interesting stuff but some things have to done at the moment ;-) Juergen Pedro. --- On Thu, 11/10/11, Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: wrote: Hi Maho; 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. well the question really is why you have checked it in this way and has disabled it directly afterwards. That doesn't make any sense and it was counterproductive from my pov. It was initially handled as all other 3rd party modules and we could have dropped it and could have kept the option to use it (if somebody wants) with the option --with-system-agg. Default would be to disable it. I think 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 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, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM 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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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 it to a third party lib but I thought the idea was to move those in instead. 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. Time is something relative. I am very new to all this and playing with this stuff that doesn't interfere with the critical path served me to learn SVN and start understanding the build system. I've done other much simpler changes that are of huge importance but this agg thing taught me a lot. Doing it at a later time would certainly not be acceptable: we don't want to move stuff like this the week before a release! ... why not analyzing if possible to use it? As it is optional (default=disabled) anyway it would be much easier. I could have it accept 2.5 but remember: - This is not used by anything in the tree. - We have the compatible version 2.4 already. relatively easy. you can always ask if others can help. I can think also about much more interesting stuff but some things have to done at the moment ;-) I will probably get to see what can be improved in the configure script but for now let's just keep doing what matters :-P. Pedro.
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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. IIRC Pedro tried to remove it, but then canvas couldn't be built anymore. So he at least updated it as much as possible. IMHO a good idea. Regards, Mathias
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Hi Maho; 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 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 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: p...@apache.org Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM 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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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 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. Looks like a bug. But it is reasonable if I read the configure.in. First, examine enabling agg or not. quoting from configure.in AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to enable agg]) if test $enable_agg = yes; then AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) AC_SUBST(ENABLE_AGG) ENABLE_AGG=YES AGG_VERSION=2400 else AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) ENABLE_AGG=NO dnl === dnl Check for system AGG dnl === AC_MSG_CHECKING([which AGG to use]) - but then, checks for system agg even though ENABLE_AGG=NO. thanks 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: p...@apache.org Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM 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
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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 that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with --with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format=installed rpm and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build. IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpwmycy7pnZW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
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). The work is available as a script under GPL license, but needs some improvement (was initialy written by a student from epitech Paris, and I maintain it since one year). OpenBSD needs installed (I completed OpenBSD build for OOo4Kids some time ago). The last issue is rpm, but I bet this is similar to dh_make. On Mac OS X, everything is in XCode. Windows needs nsis + some strange blobs So at least epm can be removed from the repo, and kept (at the beginning) as build dependency, why not. About agg, I don't know exactly. I do builds without it, but I don't know what is the difference. Maybe use system agg as dependency could help if mandatory ? Regards, Eric -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: EPM
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. Regards, Pedro.
Re: 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 and create our own packages without EPM. OOo always used EPM for package creation by default. My first patch for disabling copyleft components removed that, now I brought it back again. If you had your own way, you probably had your own configure switches to work with it. I hope it still works. Regards, Mathias
Re: EPM
--- 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 differently ... with Cmake :-) cheers, Pedro.
Re: EPM
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 ever work on the build system, it will be very differently ... with Cmake :-) We tried Cmake and dropped it. But that's a topic we can discuss later. :-) If you want, you can look for the discussion we had on d...@openoffice.org some time ago. Regards, Mathias
