Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
On 01/11/10 14:13, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On 2010-11-01 at 09:36 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > >>> The idea is to forget the 'build' repository in the normal process, and >>> let it only for the documentation, and for the distro maintainers - if >>> they need it at all. 'bootstrap' would become the new main repo, and >>> would have the following layout: >> May I chime in again? Sorry for being pedantic, but I want it done right >> before we are got stuck in another "historical reasons" situation. > More than 'historical reasons', we are stuck here in 'how we want to > have that organized when everything is settled down' :-) > > The ideal we are heading to is that all the repos are on the same level, > and buildable separately. I mean, eg. the 'writer' repo should not be > in some subdir of 'bootstrap', but in the same one: > > /bootstrap > /artwork > /libs-gui > ... > /writer And can we call the parent of these directories something like "libreoffice", not something completely generic and meaningless like "build". I've got a directory called ~/gitstuff. I've got a lilypond clone in there called "lilypond". I've got a git clone in there called "git". But when I clone libreoffice (as per the website instructions) I end up with a libreoffice clone called "build"! So I have to create a directory called loffice to put build in, which messes up all my directory levels! > Why not to rename 'bootstrap' to a new 'build'? Renaming repos is a > PITA - consider someone that has the current 'build' repo, and pulls > from freedestkop after having 'bootstrap' renamed to 'build' - he'd get > terrible conflicts and git warnings; worse - he could resolve them, > merge, and push back, which would get all the 'build' history into what > is now 'bootstrap' - something that we really don't want :-( > > Either way - what I'd recommend it actually to clone 'bootstrap' as > 'master', like: > > git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice/bootstrap master No ... if that's the top-level clone and it creates a repo on the user's disk called "bootstrap", no it shouldn't. The top-level clone should be git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice If you then run a ./download.sh and it pulls a down a load of other stuff, that can do what it likes inside the top-level libreoffice. > And for the branches > > git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice/bootstrap > libreoffice-3-3-1 > > [when available ;-)] etc. So, I hope the 'bootstrap' part is not that > important in all this, and anyway, it will get more substance rather > sooner than later. > > Anyway - if too annoying, let's focus on this later; I mostly need > feedback on the layout itself, the naming is orthogonal to this at this > stage, I think. > Whatever - it takes volunteers to do it :-) But PLEASE don't keep the current system where the top-level clone creates a meaninglessly-named directory in the user's file hierarchy - I don't know about all projects but none of the other ones I've come across does it. Cheers, Wol ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
Hi Sebastian, On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 09:27 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > May I nag a little ? Please do ! :-) > Besides some rumours I did not know anything about a > branching over the weekend (and it does not seem to have happened > anyway). Neither could I find any branching plans in the latest SC > minutes. Oh - it was in the minutes we sent to the list, in the first week - which is a while back I guess. Here is the current status: Kendy is merging Oracle's m13 fixes into master; and promises to have the branch done today. Hopefully then we can have a call to re-submit & merge outstanding patches for master - and get going on the heavy-lifting there to clean things up. Sorry for the delay & lack of data, Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:13:35 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > And if you have the build dependencies of eg. writer (eg. from your > Linux distro), you shouldn't need any of the other repositories at all, > to be able to build it. Thanks for the info. Sebastian pgportBw9QEio.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
Hi Sebastian, On 2010-11-01 at 09:36 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > > The idea is to forget the 'build' repository in the normal process, and > > let it only for the documentation, and for the distro maintainers - if > > they need it at all. 'bootstrap' would become the new main repo, and > > would have the following layout: > > May I chime in again? Sorry for being pedantic, but I want it done right > before we are got stuck in another "historical reasons" situation. More than 'historical reasons', we are stuck here in 'how we want to have that organized when everything is settled down' :-) The ideal we are heading to is that all the repos are on the same level, and buildable separately. I mean, eg. the 'writer' repo should not be in some subdir of 'bootstrap', but in the same one: /bootstrap /artwork /libs-gui ... /writer And if you have the build dependencies of eg. writer (eg. from your Linux distro), you shouldn't need any of the other repositories at all, to be able to build it. The change I'd like to do now is the first step regarding this - to get rid of the 'build' repo. The second one is to finish the 'split build' the way outlined above. Why not to rename 'bootstrap' to a new 'build'? Renaming repos is a PITA - consider someone that has the current 'build' repo, and pulls from freedestkop after having 'bootstrap' renamed to 'build' - he'd get terrible conflicts and git warnings; worse - he could resolve them, merge, and push back, which would get all the 'build' history into what is now 'bootstrap' - something that we really don't want :-( Either way - what I'd recommend it actually to clone 'bootstrap' as 'master', like: git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice/bootstrap master And for the branches git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice/bootstrap libreoffice-3-3-1 [when available ;-)] etc. So, I hope the 'bootstrap' part is not that important in all this, and anyway, it will get more substance rather sooner than later. Anyway - if too annoying, let's focus on this later; I mostly need feedback on the layout itself, the naming is orthogonal to this at this stage, I think. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
Hi Sebastian, On 2010-11-01 at 09:17 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > > > ...post the branch / freeze over the weekend... > > > > May I nag a little? Besides some rumours I did not know anything about a > > branching over the weekend (and it does not seem to have happened > > anyway). Neither could I find any branching plans in the latest SC > > minutes. > > Sorry, this was back at the end of Sep that we picked the end of Oct as > the freeze/branch > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-September/02.html This was my mistake that I was not clear on the IRC, that I counted on this date, but wanted to get in sync with Caolan & Rene first, really sorry for that. I am just merging the m13 OOo changes, and will create the branch immediately I realize it builds; so expect 1-3 hrs, please ;-) Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 09:27 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:41:26 +0100, Michael Meeks > wrote: > > ...post the branch / freeze over the weekend... > > May I nag a little? Besides some rumours I did not know anything about a > branching over the weekend (and it does not seem to have happened > anyway). Neither could I find any branching plans in the latest SC > minutes. Sorry, this was back at the end of Sep that we picked the end of Oct as the freeze/branch http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-September/02.html > I know it's annoying to keep us informed, but a quick mail would have > been nice. Now we have a "they" did not branch and "we" don't know > what's going on and when situation. Which is not good. Weekends suck for getting people, in retrospect it was a mistake to pick the 30th without looking at a calendar to better place it onto a week-day. I would imagine that pmladek/kendy will organize branches or something today or so. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:12:56 +0200, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > The idea is to forget the 'build' repository in the normal process, and > let it only for the documentation, and for the distro maintainers - if > they need it at all. 'bootstrap' would become the new main repo, and > would have the following layout: May I chime in again? Sorry for being pedantic, but I want it done right before we are got stuck in another "historical reasons" situation. I don't like "bootstrap". Telling our users to download/build and then going into "bootstrap" to make install and find the binaries is really non-intuitive. Please consider names such as dist/built/src/rawbuild/build/... they are are all better ones (ie where a user actually might expect binaries to be after they build). Consider renaming the old "build" folder to something else and use build for the "new rawbuild" would be my proposal. Thanks Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:41:26 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > ...post the branch / freeze over the weekend... May I nag a little? Besides some rumours I did not know anything about a branching over the weekend (and it does not seem to have happened anyway). Neither could I find any branching plans in the latest SC minutes. I know it's annoying to keep us informed, but a quick mail would have been nice. Now we have a "they" did not branch and "we" don't know what's going on and when situation. Which is not good. Thanks for your understanding :). Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
Hi Michael, all,
Michael Meeks píše v Pá 29. 10. 2010 v 21:41 +0100:
> The screwed up situation of having these two places to build, two
> different conflicting makefiles with different rules etc. needs to be
> cleared up ASAP - post the branch / freeze over the weekend, this
> needs to be one of the first things we fix I think.
Indeed :-) So let me outline the plan here, so that people can scream
before I do that. [Actually, it was Petr's idea, so praise him if you
like it, but blame me if not :-)]
The idea is to forget the 'build' repository in the normal process, and
let it only for the documentation, and for the distro maintainers - if
they need it at all. 'bootstrap' would become the new main repo, and
would have the following layout:
/bootstrap
/autogen.sh
/configure.in
/dmake
...
/stlport # ie. the stuff it contains even now, plus
/clone # equivalent of build/clone we have now, containing
/artwork
/base
...
/writer
~accessibility
~afms
...
~zlib# links to the clone/*/[module], ie. equivalent of the
# content of rawbuild/
/bin # for scripts needed, namely 'g'
It will need some shuffling around, eg. the already mentioned 'g' script
(that will work both on 'bootstrap' itself, as well as on the repos in
clone/) will have to be moved from the build repo, or the ./download
script.
Also, we'll need to update bootstrap's configure.in to have the defaults
same as the current default LibreOffice{Linux,Win32,MacOSX}Devel distro.
Let me know if it works for you - hopefully yes :-)
Regards,
Kendy
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 19:34 +0200, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Jani Monoses píše v Pá 29. 10. 2010 v 17:49 +0300: > > This page describes building in the topmost dir > > http://www.documentfoundation.org/develop/ > > whereas the wiki-page example changes to rawbuild before. > > > > Which one is recommended? I have been building from topmost dir so > > far. > > rawbuild/ is recommended for development, because you have the git > tracking there - you are easily able to generate patches that way. But - of course, I use the mechanism that is recommended on the web-site, and that is tested by most of our beginners, and is known to work well ;-) [ ie. build/libreoffice-* ] - and yes it is deadly annoying. The screwed up situation of having these two places to build, two different conflicting makefiles with different rules etc. needs to be cleared up ASAP - post the branch / freeze over the weekend, this needs to be one of the first things we fix I think. Hopefully the situation will not persist indefinitaely, since it works for me without problems, I'd personally recommend the web-site page approach :-) manifestly it has only four simple steps: autogen, download, make, bin/ooinstall ... HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
Hi Jani, Jani Monoses píše v Pá 29. 10. 2010 v 17:49 +0300: > This page describes building in the topmost dir > http://www.documentfoundation.org/develop/ > whereas the wiki-page example changes to rawbuild before. > > Which one is recommended? I have been building from topmost dir so > far. rawbuild/ is recommended for development, because you have the git tracking there - you are easily able to generate patches that way. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?
This page describes building in the topmost dir http://www.documentfoundation.org/develop/ whereas the wiki-page example changes to rawbuild before. Which one is recommended? I have been building from topmost dir so far. thanks Jani ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
