Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | How long? Or more specifically: Why not now? Mostly selfish reason. Give this scons stuff to settle a bit and we will look at it. OK, I will come back when I think it is time. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak I understand all this, really. Nevertheless, maybe because Abdelrazak of this bad past experience, I have the feeling that you Abdelrazak (as a whole) are over protective with your baby. LyX is Abdelrazak not a baby anymore, she is now a beautiful young lady that Abdelrazak needs some adventure beside you ;-) As you may now, men are not supposed to take liberties with women just because they want to. And you should be very careful about her angry brothers :) Abdelrazak I mean, maybe I am wrong but the primary reason why you Abdelrazak have cleanup the code is to ease new feature development, Abdelrazak isn't it? Yes. And we do not intend to cleanup the same things again in one or two years. I think the important thing here is that features should be designed and not only coded. Abdelrazak [...] So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free bear for everyone. ;-) Abdelrazak That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars Abdelrazak :-) What would we do with a bear?? JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Thursday 11 May 2006 08:40, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: What would we do with a bear?? You should use it to keep the beer cool, I can assure you that there are not many people brave (== foolish) enough to face a polar bear just for a beer. So as you see your beer will be safe and cool. JMarc My totem animal is Polar Bear in case you wonder. :-) -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:49, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) Can we trust a person that is afraid of cucumbers? Are you cucumberhater-o-fobic by any change? I am starting to think about withdrawing my proposal for the next stable release coordinator. I hope you are happy now. -- Lgb -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:49, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) | | Can we trust a person that is afraid of cucumbers? | | Are you cucumberhater-o-fobic by any change? | | I am starting to think about withdrawing my proposal for the next stable | release coordinator. I hope you are happy now. Oh! No no. I hate cucumbers and love bears as well. Consider yourself sucked into the rola as 1.5 next stable release coordinator. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > | How long? Or more specifically: Why not now? > > Mostly selfish reason. > > Give this scons stuff to settle a bit and we will look at it. OK, I will come back when I think it is time. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Abdelrazak> I understand all this, really. Nevertheless, maybe because Abdelrazak> of this bad past experience, I have the feeling that you Abdelrazak> (as a whole) are over protective with your baby. LyX is Abdelrazak> not a baby anymore, she is now a beautiful young lady that Abdelrazak> needs some adventure beside you ;-) As you may now, men are not supposed to take liberties with women just because they want to. And you should be very careful about her angry brothers :) Abdelrazak> I mean, maybe I am wrong but the primary reason why you Abdelrazak> have cleanup the code is to ease new feature development, Abdelrazak> isn't it? Yes. And we do not intend to cleanup the same things again in one or two years. I think the important thing here is that features should be designed and not only coded. Abdelrazak> [...] >> So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free >> bear for everyone. ;-) Abdelrazak> That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars Abdelrazak> :-) What would we do with a bear?? JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Thursday 11 May 2006 08:40, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > What would we do with a bear?? You should use it to keep the beer cool, I can assure you that there are not many people brave (== foolish) enough to face a polar bear just for a beer. So as you see your beer will be safe and cool. > JMarc My totem animal is Polar Bear in case you wonder. :-) -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:49, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) > > Can we trust a person that is afraid of cucumbers? Are you cucumberhater-o-fobic by any change? I am starting to think about withdrawing my proposal for the next stable release coordinator. I hope you are happy now. > -- > Lgb -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:49, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) | > | > Can we trust a person that is afraid of cucumbers? | | Are you cucumberhater-o-fobic by any change? | | I am starting to think about withdrawing my proposal for the next stable | release coordinator. I hope you are happy now. Oh! No no. I hate cucumbers and love bears as well. Consider yourself sucked into the rola as 1.5 next stable release coordinator. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng wrote: A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. Georg PS: If you are frustated, take a break, but don't frustrate others.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng a écrit : Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results (stdc++.so etc). A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). Please only reserve this treatment for cygwin as it seems to work well with mingw: * gcc rightfully takes .C file as C++ (by contents or by extension, I am not sure). * Scons generates moc_xxx.cc file so they should be correctly identified as C++ by gcc. * linking should be done with g++ or IIRC you can also use gcc and pass -lstdc++ Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Bo Peng a écrit : Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results (stdc++.so etc). A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). Please only reserve this treatment for cygwin as it seems to work well with mingw: * gcc rightfully takes .C file as C++ (by contents or by extension, I am not sure). * Scons generates moc_xxx.cc file so they should be correctly identified as C++ by gcc. * linking should be done with g++ or IIRC you can also use gcc and pass -lstdc++ Wait a moment Abdel. If scons is using gcc to compile .C files it means that it is not able to recognize them as C++ sources. This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's treatment and this led to the dreadful undefined reference for vtable in... error. -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Could I suggest that you list the initial features that you want so that | scons stays in SVN? | | Lars wants an immediate replacement for autotools. That will not | happen any time soon. No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing autotools. Huge difference. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:39:32AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: Bo Peng wrote: A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I can't speak for Bo, of course, but I think he had 1.4 in mind. -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Bo Peng a écrit : Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results (stdc++.so etc). A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). Please only reserve this treatment for cygwin as it seems to work well with mingw: * gcc rightfully takes .C file as C++ (by contents or by extension, I am not sure). * Scons generates moc_xxx.cc file so they should be correctly identified as C++ by gcc. * linking should be done with g++ or IIRC you can also use gcc and pass -lstdc++ Wait a moment Abdel. If scons is using gcc to compile .C files it means that it is not able to recognize them as C++ sources. I confirm that Scons is using gcc and g++ to compile the .C file. I reckon gcc is intelligent enough to recognize these file as C++. Otherwise they would obviously not compile at all. The weird thing is that I see this in SConstruct: # under windows, scons is confused by .C/.c and uses gcc instead of # g++. I am forcing the use of g++ here. This is expected to change # after lyx renames all .C files to .cpp if platform_name in ['win32', 'cygwin']: env['CC'] = 'g++' env['LINK'] = 'g++' But gcc is used everywhere! I have removed 'win32' from the code above and it works the same. I think these environment variable are simply ignored in straight win32 (remember that I am compiling from the console not from the cygwin shell). A related problem that I have is that CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are ignored even if Scons tell me they are acknoledge. This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I don't know but it works. mocable files are correctly recognized and the resulting moc_xxx.cc files are compiled with gcc. I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's treatment and this led to the dreadful undefined reference for vtable in... error. I don't have that with qt4 /mingw :-) Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:39:32AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: Bo Peng wrote: A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I can't speak for Bo, of course, but I think he had 1.4 in mind. If that is the case I take everything back (but I don't understand why we need scons in 1.4 at all, since it is only a maintenance branch) Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum a écrit : (but I don't understand why we need scons in 1.4 at all, since it is only a maintenance branch) Agreed. We have already enough difficulty to let it stay in 1.5 so please don't advocate 1.4. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:39:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Wait a moment Abdel. If scons is using gcc to compile .C files it means that it is not able to recognize them as C++ sources. I confirm that Scons is using gcc and g++ to compile the .C file. I reckon gcc is intelligent enough to recognize these file as C++. Otherwise they would obviously not compile at all. The weird thing is that I see this in SConstruct: # under windows, scons is confused by .C/.c and uses gcc instead of # g++. I am forcing the use of g++ here. This is expected to change # after lyx renames all .C files to .cpp if platform_name in ['win32', 'cygwin']: env['CC'] = 'g++' env['LINK'] = 'g++' But gcc is used everywhere! I have removed 'win32' from the code above and it works the same. And you are using a native python, right? I think these environment variable are simply ignored in straight win32 (remember that I am compiling from the console not from the cygwin shell). I am sorry for you having to use that hostile environment ;-) A related problem that I have is that CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are ignored even if Scons tell me they are acknoledge. Using CCFLAGS=-O2 on the scons command line works fine for me. This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I don't know but it works. mocable files are correctly recognized and the resulting moc_xxx.cc files are compiled with gcc. Huh? Do you mean that gcc is also used for .cc files? I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's treatment and this led to the dreadful undefined reference for vtable in... error. I don't have that with qt4 /mingw :-) Then qt4 is somehow different from qt3 (or Bo did something to deal with it, too). -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:39:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: But gcc is used everywhere! I have removed 'win32' from the code above and it works the same. And you are using a native python, right? Right. I think these environment variable are simply ignored in straight win32 (remember that I am compiling from the console not from the cygwin shell). I am sorry for you having to use that hostile environment ;-) Such is life :-( A related problem that I have is that CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are ignored even if Scons tell me they are acknoledge. Using CCFLAGS=-O2 on the scons command line works fine for me. Don't work here. export CCFLAFS=-O3 -w don't work either even if I see: Acquiring varaible CXXFLAGS from system environment: -O3 -w This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I don't know but it works. mocable files are correctly recognized and the resulting moc_xxx.cc files are compiled with gcc. Huh? Do you mean that gcc is also used for .cc files? Yes. I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's treatment and this led to the dreadful undefined reference for vtable in... error. I don't have that with qt4 /mingw :-) Then qt4 is somehow different from qt3 (or Bo did something to deal with it, too). Maybe it's Scons that do something special for Qt4 because I see a Loading qt4 tool... message. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Joost If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be Joost very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that Joost break important things. It used to work. What is broken now? Scons claims that it can generate vc project file so I think this is an easier way to maintain the vc port. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
When scons install works, I will look at making it part of my daily builds. This is the easy part, and will be done shortly. What are more difficult are scons dist, dist-clean, rpm etc, by which autotools are proud of. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename change and get is your problem fixed? reply. Namely, as long as lyx is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this will happen this time. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing autotools. Huge difference. Actually, I would like to free myself from the obligation of challenging autotools. I personally believe that scons will evolve to a state that can replace autotools without doubt, but it is not easy to prove it *now*, given its 0.96.xx status. Currently, autotools work on windows, cygwin, solaris and every linux variant under the sun so a replacement is not needed. As long as package packers can live with autotools, I have no intention to change the current status. That does not have to mean autotools are easy to use. We windows (?) programmers have had trouble with changing even a small bit of .m4 file, and we dislike the lengthy and sometimes unnecessary ./configure process, and the need to change between mingw/cygwin etc just to get the right version of autotools. Please allow *us* to use the scons system and make our lives a bit easier. *nix people please stay with autotools. Cheers, Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:51, Bo Peng wrote: I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename change and get is your problem fixed? reply. Namely, as long as lyx is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. Clearly that is an oversimplification of what was said. Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this will happen this time. ?! Bo -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I can't speak for Bo, of course, but I think he had 1.4 in mind. No, I only had 1.5 in mind. I was making a prediction that the name change will not happen this time, and I will be really happy to know I was wrong. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing | autotools. Huge difference. | | Actually, I would like to free myself from the obligation of | challenging autotools. I personally believe that scons will evolve to | a state that can replace autotools without doubt, but it is not easy | to prove it *now*, given its 0.96.xx status. | | Currently, autotools work on windows, cygwin, solaris and every linux | variant under the sun so a replacement is not needed. As long as | package packers can live with autotools, I have no intention to change | the current status. Ok, nail in the coffin then. Retire all scons stuff to the development dir, just as was done with the vcproj stuff. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng a écrit : A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename change and get is your problem fixed? reply. Namely, as long as lyx is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this will happen this time. I think there is a communication problem here, Bo. Georg offered to do this renaming job over the week-end. I think you are frustrated by Andre's comment but AFAIU, he only meant that the fact that there is a problem with Qt3/cygwin and .C file is not a justification for this change, that's it. But IMHO, this change should happen anyway. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Bo Peng a écrit : | A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use | the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ | (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). | | So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? | Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time | because | I don't need to read your posts anymore. | I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename | change and get is your problem fixed? reply. Namely, as long as lyx | is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the | source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. | Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times | but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this | will happen this time. | | I think there is a communication problem here, Bo. Georg offered to do | this renaming job over the week-end. I think you are frustrated by | Andre's comment but AFAIU, he only meant that the fact that there is a | problem with Qt3/cygwin and .C file is not a justification for this | change, that's it. But IMHO, this change should happen anyway. I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a while. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes a écrit : Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing | autotools. Huge difference. | | Actually, I would like to free myself from the obligation of | challenging autotools. I personally believe that scons will evolve to | a state that can replace autotools without doubt, but it is not easy | to prove it *now*, given its 0.96.xx status. | | Currently, autotools work on windows, cygwin, solaris and every linux | variant under the sun so a replacement is not needed. As long as | package packers can live with autotools, I have no intention to change | the current status. Ok, nail in the coffin then. Retire all scons stuff to the development dir, just as was done with the vcproj stuff. Come on guys, keep cool. Lars just agreed for Scons presence in trunk... IMHO there's better things in life than to fight for these little matters. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak Come on guys, keep cool. Lars just agreed for Scons Abdelrazak presence in trunk... IMHO there's better things in life Abdelrazak than to fight for these little matters. There was a time when developing for LyX did not involve flexing muscles all day long. It was nice. JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng wrote: I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename change and get is your problem fixed? reply. Namely, as long as lyx is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. I did not read it like that. André pointed out (and was right IMO) that .C and .c work fine on windows as long as you don't need foo.C and foo.c at the same time, so scons does not as well as it could here. The reason for renaming from .C to .cpp is not scons needs it but it is useful for a couple of reasons, one being some problems on windows. This has been stated more than once. Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this will happen this time. And this is what I don't like. I promised to do the change, and you still believe it will not happen. The difference to the last times this issue has been discussed was that then nobody said he wanted to do it, only a conclusion this should happen some time has been reached. OK, Lars said he wants to wait for a while, but this does not mean to wait forever. Anyway, I stop participating in these meta-discussions right now, it does only cost time and resultsv in nothing. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: There was a time when developing for LyX did not involve flexing muscles all day long. It was nice. Indeed. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a while. How long? Or more specifically: Why not now? Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum a écrit : Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: There was a time when developing for LyX did not involve flexing muscles all day long. It was nice. Indeed. Guys, you have to recognize that it's difficult for us also that we have to fight for each and every feature and prove ourselves each time. I don't mind discussing myself (I probably enjoy it as it is a new experience for me ;-)); but if you really are fad up with these lengthy discussions about windows and scons and etc. please tell us and we will switch to private discussions. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a | while. | | How long? Or more specifically: Why not now? Mostly selfish reason. Give this scons stuff to settle a bit and we will look at it. When I said I am not really against a renaming, I really should have said: I am in favour of a renaming. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:02, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Guys, you have to recognize that it's difficult for us also that we have to fight for each and every feature and prove ourselves each time. I don't mind discussing myself (I probably enjoy it as it is a new experience for me ;-)); but if you really are fad up with these lengthy discussions about windows and scons and etc. please tell us and we will switch to private discussions. What you are saying is reasonable but please look to the other side of the coin. We (LyX) had lots of half features implemented over time where after the initial enthusiasm of the author fade away the feature was left to rotten since no one knew the code. This is what we don't want to happen again. Sometimes it seems tempting to trade a short term advantage for the long time code stability. Believe me it is not worth it. We are aware that the management of different wills is not easy. And people like rewards in the form of code acceptance. It feels good when my code is accepted, and so it does for other people. That is why we try to maintain the balance between stability and new features. Email is certainly not the best collaboration tool there is but we don't have any better tool (yet). So a little patience does not hurt either, remember the netiquette mantra Be conservative in what you sent, be liberal in what you receive. I refer email here because I have read several threads differently from other, and that takes times to understand. LyX has its own culture and although not being necessary to know it to communicate it helps a lot. All contributions are welcome and as any human endeavour there are non-written rules to follow. It is our nature after all. :-) So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free bear for everyone. ;-) Abdel. Best regards, -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jose' Matos a écrit : On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:02, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Guys, you have to recognize that it's difficult for us also that we have to fight for each and every feature and prove ourselves each time. I don't mind discussing myself (I probably enjoy it as it is a new experience for me ;-)); but if you really are fad up with these lengthy discussions about windows and scons and etc. please tell us and we will switch to private discussions. What you are saying is reasonable but please look to the other side of the coin. We (LyX) had lots of half features implemented over time where after the initial enthusiasm of the author fade away the feature was left to rotten since no one knew the code. This is what we don't want to happen again. Sometimes it seems tempting to trade a short term advantage for the long time code stability. Believe me it is not worth it. I understand all this, really. Nevertheless, maybe because of this bad past experience, I have the feeling that you (as a whole) are over protective with your baby. LyX is not a baby anymore, she is now a beautiful young lady that needs some adventure beside you ;-) I mean, maybe I am wrong but the primary reason why you have cleanup the code is to ease new feature development, isn't it? [...] So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free bear for everyone. ;-) That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I understand all this, really. Nevertheless, maybe because of this bad | past experience, I have the feeling that you (as a whole) are over | protective with your baby. LyX is not a baby anymore, she is now a | beautiful young lady that needs some adventure beside you ;-) And as a lady should not be taken any liberties upon without consent :-) | I mean, maybe I am wrong but the primary reason why you have cleanup | the code is to ease new feature development, isn't it? Right. But if we are not at least a bit careful, cleanup can result in something ah hmm less clean. And pure cleanup patches usually have no problems of acceptance. (apart from stylistic issues and if it is the right cleanup...) | [...] |So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free | bear for everyone. ;-) | | That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) Can we trust a person that is afraid of cucumbers? -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a while. For instance, until the CT merge :-) Michael
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng wrote: > A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use > the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ > (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. Georg PS: If you are frustated, take a break, but don't frustrate others.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng a écrit : Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results (stdc++.so etc). A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). Please only reserve this treatment for cygwin as it seems to work well with mingw: * gcc rightfully takes .C file as C++ (by contents or by extension, I am not sure). * Scons generates moc_xxx.cc file so they should be correctly identified as C++ by gcc. * linking should be done with g++ or IIRC you can also use gcc and pass "-lstdc++" Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Bo Peng a écrit : > >>Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source > >>files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so > >>with cygwin? > > > >I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the > >content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. > >However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results > >(stdc++.so etc). > > > >A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use > >the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ > >(I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). > > Please only reserve this treatment for cygwin as it seems to work well > with mingw: > > * gcc rightfully takes .C file as C++ (by contents or by extension, I am > not sure). > * Scons generates moc_xxx.cc file so they should be correctly identified > as C++ by gcc. > * linking should be done with g++ or IIRC you can also use gcc and pass > "-lstdc++" Wait a moment Abdel. If scons is using gcc to compile .C files it means that it is not able to recognize them as C++ sources. This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's "treatment" and this led to the dreadful "undefined reference for vtable in..." error. -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > Could I suggest that you list the initial features that you want so that | > scons stays in SVN? | | Lars wants an immediate replacement for autotools. That will not | happen any time soon. No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing autotools. Huge difference. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:39:32AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Bo Peng wrote: > > > A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use > > the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ > > (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). > > So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? > Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because > I don't need to read your posts anymore. I can't speak for Bo, of course, but I think he had 1.4 in mind. -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Bo Peng a écrit : Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results (stdc++.so etc). A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). Please only reserve this treatment for cygwin as it seems to work well with mingw: * gcc rightfully takes .C file as C++ (by contents or by extension, I am not sure). * Scons generates moc_xxx.cc file so they should be correctly identified as C++ by gcc. * linking should be done with g++ or IIRC you can also use gcc and pass "-lstdc++" Wait a moment Abdel. If scons is using gcc to compile .C files it means that it is not able to recognize them as C++ sources. I confirm that Scons is using gcc and g++ to compile the .C file. I reckon gcc is intelligent enough to recognize these file as C++. Otherwise they would obviously not compile at all. The weird thing is that I see this in SConstruct: # under windows, scons is confused by .C/.c and uses gcc instead of # g++. I am forcing the use of g++ here. This is expected to change # after lyx renames all .C files to .cpp if platform_name in ['win32', 'cygwin']: env['CC'] = 'g++' env['LINK'] = 'g++' But gcc is used everywhere! I have removed 'win32' from the code above and it works the same. I think these environment variable are simply ignored in straight win32 (remember that I am compiling from the console not from the cygwin shell). A related problem that I have is that CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are ignored even if Scons tell me they are acknoledge. This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I don't know but it works. mocable files are correctly recognized and the resulting moc_xxx.cc files are compiled with gcc. I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's "treatment" and this led to the dreadful "undefined reference for vtable in..." error. I don't have that with qt4 /mingw :-) Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:39:32AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: >> Bo Peng wrote: >> >> > A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use >> > the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ >> > (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). >> >> So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? >> Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time >> because I don't need to read your posts anymore. > > I can't speak for Bo, of course, but I think he had 1.4 in mind. If that is the case I take everything back (but I don't understand why we need scons in 1.4 at all, since it is only a maintenance branch) Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum a écrit : (but I don't understand why we need scons in 1.4 at all, since it is only a maintenance branch) Agreed. We have already enough difficulty to let it stay in 1.5 so please don't advocate 1.4. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:39:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >Wait a moment Abdel. If scons is using gcc to compile .C files it means > >that it is not able to recognize them as C++ sources. > > I confirm that Scons is using gcc and g++ to compile the .C file. I > reckon gcc is intelligent enough to recognize these file as C++. > Otherwise they would obviously not compile at all. > The weird thing is that I see this in SConstruct: > > # under windows, scons is confused by .C/.c and uses gcc instead of > # g++. I am forcing the use of g++ here. This is expected to change > # after lyx renames all .C files to .cpp > if platform_name in ['win32', 'cygwin']: > env['CC'] = 'g++' > env['LINK'] = 'g++' > > But gcc is used everywhere! I have removed 'win32' from the code above > and it works the same. And you are using a native python, right? > I think these environment variable are simply > ignored in straight win32 (remember that I am compiling from the console > not from the cygwin shell). I am sorry for you having to use that hostile environment ;-) > A related problem that I have is that > CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are ignored even if Scons tell me they are acknoledge. Using CCFLAGS=-O2 on the scons command line works fine for me. > >This also means > >that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? > > I don't know but it works. mocable files are correctly recognized and > the resulting moc_xxx.cc files are compiled with gcc. Huh? Do you mean that gcc is also used for .cc files? > >I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without > >Bo's "treatment" and this led to the dreadful "undefined reference for > >vtable in..." error. > > I don't have that with qt4 /mingw :-) Then qt4 is somehow different from qt3 (or Bo did something to deal with it, too). -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:39:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: But gcc is used everywhere! I have removed 'win32' from the code above and it works the same. And you are using a native python, right? Right. I think these environment variable are simply ignored in straight win32 (remember that I am compiling from the console not from the cygwin shell). I am sorry for you having to use that hostile environment ;-) Such is life :-( A related problem that I have is that CCFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are ignored even if Scons tell me they are acknoledge. Using CCFLAGS=-O2 on the scons command line works fine for me. Don't work here. export CCFLAFS="-O3 -w" don't work either even if I see: Acquiring varaible CXXFLAGS from system environment: "-O3 -w" This also means that it will not check for mocable files. So, how can it work for you? I don't know but it works. mocable files are correctly recognized and the resulting moc_xxx.cc files are compiled with gcc. Huh? Do you mean that gcc is also used for .cc files? Yes. I verified that 57 object files were missing from libqt3.a without Bo's "treatment" and this led to the dreadful "undefined reference for vtable in..." error. I don't have that with qt4 /mingw :-) Then qt4 is somehow different from qt3 (or Bo did something to deal with it, too). Maybe it's Scons that do something special for Qt4 because I see a "Loading qt4 tool..." message. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
> Joost> If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be > Joost> very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that > Joost> break important things. > > It used to work. What is broken now? Scons claims that it can generate vc project file so I think this is an easier way to maintain the vc port. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
When "scons install" works, I will look at making it part of my daily builds. This is the easy part, and will be done shortly. What are more difficult are scons dist, dist-clean, rpm etc, by which autotools are proud of. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
> A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use > the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ > (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename change and get "is your problem fixed?" reply. Namely, as long as lyx is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this will happen this time. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing autotools. Huge difference. Actually, I would like to free myself from the obligation of challenging autotools. I personally believe that scons will evolve to a state that can replace autotools without doubt, but it is not easy to prove it *now*, given its 0.96.xx status. Currently, autotools work on windows, cygwin, solaris and every linux variant under the sun so a replacement is not needed. As long as package packers can live with autotools, I have no intention to change the current status. That does not have to mean autotools are easy to use. We windows (?) programmers have had trouble with changing even a small bit of .m4 file, and we dislike the lengthy and sometimes unnecessary ./configure process, and the need to change between mingw/cygwin etc just to get the right version of autotools. Please allow *us* to use the scons system and make our lives a bit easier. *nix people please stay with autotools. Cheers, Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:51, Bo Peng wrote: > I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename > change and get "is your problem fixed?" reply. Namely, as long as lyx > is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the > source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. Clearly that is an oversimplification of what was said. > Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times > but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this > will happen this time. ?! > Bo -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
> So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? > Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because > I don't need to read your posts anymore. I can't speak for Bo, of course, but I think he had 1.4 in mind. No, I only had 1.5 in mind. I was making a prediction that the name change will not happen this time, and I will be really happy to know I was wrong. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing | > autotools. Huge difference. | | Actually, I would like to free myself from the obligation of | challenging autotools. I personally believe that scons will evolve to | a state that can replace autotools without doubt, but it is not easy | to prove it *now*, given its 0.96.xx status. | | Currently, autotools work on windows, cygwin, solaris and every linux | variant under the sun so a replacement is not needed. As long as | package packers can live with autotools, I have no intention to change | the current status. Ok, nail in the coffin then. Retire all scons stuff to the development dir, just as was done with the vcproj stuff. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng a écrit : > A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use > the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ > (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time because I don't need to read your posts anymore. I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename change and get "is your problem fixed?" reply. Namely, as long as lyx is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this will happen this time. I think there is a communication problem here, Bo. Georg offered to do this renaming job over the week-end. I think you are frustrated by Andre's comment but AFAIU, he only meant that the fact that there is a problem with Qt3/cygwin and .C file is not a justification for this change, that's it. But IMHO, this change should happen anyway. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Bo Peng a écrit : | >> > A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use | >> > the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ | >> > (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). | >> | >> So this is the answer to my offer to do the renaming on a rainy weekend? | >> Good to know, if you continue like this you will save me some time | >> because | >> I don't need to read your posts anymore. | > I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename | > change and get "is your problem fixed?" reply. Namely, as long as lyx | > is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the | > source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. | > Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times | > but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this | > will happen this time. | | I think there is a communication problem here, Bo. Georg offered to do | this renaming job over the week-end. I think you are frustrated by | Andre's comment but AFAIU, he only meant that the fact that there is a | problem with Qt3/cygwin and .C file is not a justification for this | change, that's it. But IMHO, this change should happen anyway. I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a while. -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes a écrit : "Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > No. I want immediate proof that scons is _capable_ of replacing | > autotools. Huge difference. | | Actually, I would like to free myself from the obligation of | challenging autotools. I personally believe that scons will evolve to | a state that can replace autotools without doubt, but it is not easy | to prove it *now*, given its 0.96.xx status. | | Currently, autotools work on windows, cygwin, solaris and every linux | variant under the sun so a replacement is not needed. As long as | package packers can live with autotools, I have no intention to change | the current status. Ok, nail in the coffin then. Retire all scons stuff to the development dir, just as was done with the vcproj stuff. Come on guys, keep cool. Lars just agreed for Scons presence in trunk... IMHO there's better things in life than to fight for these little matters. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Abdelrazak> Come on guys, keep cool. Lars just agreed for Scons Abdelrazak> presence in trunk... IMHO there's better things in life Abdelrazak> than to fight for these little matters. There was a time when developing for LyX did not involve flexing muscles all day long. It was nice. JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo Peng wrote: > I have no right to make such a big decision. I proposed a filename > change and get "is your problem fixed?" reply. Namely, as long as lyx > is working, such a big change is not welcome, especially when the > source of the problem is from the stupidity of windows. I did not read it like that. André pointed out (and was right IMO) that .C and .c work fine on windows as long as you don't need foo.C and foo.c at the same time, so scons does not as well as it could here. The reason for renaming from .C to .cpp is not "scons needs it" but "it is useful for a couple of reasons, one being some problems on windows". This has been stated more than once. > Also, as you can see, this problem has been brought up several times > but no action had been taken. I have no reason to believe that this > will happen this time. And this is what I don't like. I promised to do the change, and you still believe it will not happen. The difference to the last times this issue has been discussed was that then nobody said he wanted to do it, only a conclusion "this should happen some time" has been reached. OK, Lars said he wants to wait for a while, but this does not mean to wait forever. Anyway, I stop participating in these meta-discussions right now, it does only cost time and resultsv in nothing. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > There was a time when developing for LyX did not involve flexing > muscles all day long. It was nice. Indeed. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a > while. How long? Or more specifically: Why not now? Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum a écrit : Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: There was a time when developing for LyX did not involve flexing muscles all day long. It was nice. Indeed. Guys, you have to recognize that it's difficult for us also that we have to fight for each and every feature and prove ourselves each time. I don't mind discussing myself (I probably enjoy it as it is a new experience for me ;-)); but if you really are fad up with these lengthy discussions about windows and scons and etc. please tell us and we will switch to private discussions. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | > I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a | > while. | | How long? Or more specifically: Why not now? Mostly selfish reason. Give this scons stuff to settle a bit and we will look at it. When I said "I am not really against a renaming", I really should have said: "I am in favour of a renaming". -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:02, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Guys, you have to recognize that it's difficult for us also that we have > to fight for each and every feature and prove ourselves each time. > I don't mind discussing myself (I probably enjoy it as it is a new > experience for me ;-)); but if you really are fad up with these lengthy > discussions about windows and scons and etc. please tell us and we will > switch to private discussions. What you are saying is reasonable but please look to the other side of the coin. We (LyX) had lots of half features implemented over time where after the initial enthusiasm of the author fade away the feature was left to rotten since no one knew the code. This is what we don't want to happen again. Sometimes it seems tempting to trade a short term advantage for the long time code stability. Believe me it is not worth it. We are aware that the management of different wills is not easy. And people like rewards in the form of code acceptance. It feels good when my code is accepted, and so it does for other people. That is why we try to maintain the balance between stability and new features. Email is certainly not the best collaboration tool there is but we don't have any better tool (yet). So a little patience does not hurt either, remember the netiquette mantra "Be conservative in what you sent, be liberal in what you receive". I refer email here because I have read several threads differently from other, and that takes times to understand. LyX has its own culture and although not being necessary to know it to communicate it helps a lot. All contributions are welcome and as any human endeavour there are non-written rules to follow. It is our nature after all. :-) So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free bear for everyone. ;-) > Abdel. Best regards, -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jose' Matos a écrit : On Wednesday 10 May 2006 18:02, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Guys, you have to recognize that it's difficult for us also that we have to fight for each and every feature and prove ourselves each time. I don't mind discussing myself (I probably enjoy it as it is a new experience for me ;-)); but if you really are fad up with these lengthy discussions about windows and scons and etc. please tell us and we will switch to private discussions. What you are saying is reasonable but please look to the other side of the coin. We (LyX) had lots of half features implemented over time where after the initial enthusiasm of the author fade away the feature was left to rotten since no one knew the code. This is what we don't want to happen again. Sometimes it seems tempting to trade a short term advantage for the long time code stability. Believe me it is not worth it. I understand all this, really. Nevertheless, maybe because of this bad past experience, I have the feeling that you (as a whole) are over protective with your baby. LyX is not a baby anymore, she is now a beautiful young lady that needs some adventure beside you ;-) I mean, maybe I am wrong but the primary reason why you have cleanup the code is to ease new feature development, isn't it? [...] So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free bear for everyone. ;-) That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I understand all this, really. Nevertheless, maybe because of this bad | past experience, I have the feeling that you (as a whole) are over | protective with your baby. LyX is not a baby anymore, she is now a | beautiful young lady that needs some adventure beside you ;-) And as a lady should not be taken any liberties upon without consent :-) | I mean, maybe I am wrong but the primary reason why you have cleanup | the code is to ease new feature development, isn't it? Right. But if we are not at least a bit careful, cleanup can result in something ah hmm less clean. And pure cleanup patches usually have no problems of acceptance. (apart from stylistic issues and if it is the right cleanup...) | [...] | > So my fellow LyXians if you elect me as president I promisse free | > bear for everyone. ;-) | | That sounds like the maintainer you were looking for Lars :-) Can we trust a person that is afraid of cucumbers? -- Lgb
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: I am not really against a renaming. But I'd like it to wait for a while. For instance, until the CT merge :-) Michael
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Joost Verburg wrote: If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that break important things. Note that compilation with MSVC++ worked fine some months ago (version 2003 aka 7, not 6, that one is simply broken), and that the project files (although now outdated) are available in development/Win32. Georg
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Joost == Joost Verburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joost Andre Poenitz wrote: Last time the Windows developers wanted to have .vcproj files. They got them. Joost If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be Joost very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that Joost break important things. It used to work. What is broken now? JMarc
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx]
On Monday 08 May 2006 18:43, Bo Peng wrote: That is quicker than ./configure but I agree that it is a concern. waf claims that it can do better here (by cache previous thinking process.) I have seen you refer waf several times. Will those changes be merged in upstream scons? I read a blog from Aaron Seigo recently where we complained that kde had to basically fork scons and upstream never took their complains into account as opposed to cmake, and that was a definitive reason for their choice. Just curious, -- José Abílio
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak You should have said something then. Because without Abdelrazak anyone saying anything it's difficult to get an idea. 3 Abdelrazak saying yes and 0 saying no... I think you get the picture. Say what? please do not commit before showing the patch? Do I have to say that explicitely on each and every feature I think someone may come up with some day? What would have been wrong with committing in a branch, seriously? The fact that these decisions are made only in terms of personal convenience makes it more difficult for scons to prove its personal merits. It is a pity. JMarc
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx]
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak John Levon a écrit : On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:19:29PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: scons: Configure: Checking for main() in C library nsl... What is this nsl library? It's networking functions on certain UNIX types like Solaris. Abdelrazak Thanks for the info, it is used in LyX client I suppose? Also in server... I spend some time getting this right for solaris, please do not ruin it. And the X server needs it too, but I guess scons has some code of its own to handle that. JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Georg Baum a écrit : Joost Verburg wrote: If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that break important things. Note that compilation with MSVC++ worked fine some months ago (version 2003 aka 7, not 6, that one is simply broken), and that the project files (although now outdated) are available in development/Win32. The problem with the vcproj file is the config.h guessing. This is simply not possible. I've read that scons is able now to generate these files so I would advocate to remove this vcproj file from SVN when/if Scons prove itself and stays in SVN. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak You should have said something then. Because without Abdelrazak anyone saying anything it's difficult to get an idea. 3 Abdelrazak saying yes and 0 saying no... I think you get the picture. Say what? please do not commit before showing the patch? Do I have to say that explicitely on each and every feature I think someone may come up with some day? I am repeating my self but it's a feature that touch _nothing_ at the current tree. So I reckon it is special. Bo have apologized already for this, could we please move on? What would have been wrong with committing in a branch, seriously? Convenience... The fact that these decisions are made only in terms of personal convenience makes it more difficult for scons to prove its personal merits. It is a pity. Convenience is a driving factor for me when I develop. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Georg Baum a écrit : | Joost Verburg wrote: | | If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be very | useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that break important | things. | Note that compilation with MSVC++ worked fine some months ago | (version 2003 | aka 7, not 6, that one is simply broken), and that the project files | (although now outdated) are available in development/Win32. | | The problem with the vcproj file is the config.h guessing. This is | simply not possible. I've read that scons is able now to generate | these files so I would advocate to remove this vcproj file from SVN | when/if Scons prove itself and stays in SVN. but scons currently doesn this on every build (ok, only first time is really slow... further builds configure is just somewhat slow), is it avoidable? If nothing happens with scons in the next couple of days, I am going to remove it from trunk. And the onus is not on auto* people, but on proponents of scons, you have to show at the lest the begnnings of it being able to do what auto* is doing for us. -- Lgb
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx]
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak John Levon a écrit : On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:19:29PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: scons: Configure: Checking for main() in C library nsl... What is this nsl library? It's networking functions on certain UNIX types like Solaris. Abdelrazak Thanks for the info, it is used in LyX client I suppose? Also in server... I spend some time getting this right for solaris, please do not ruin it. The objective is not to ruin anything but to complete scons support. And the X server needs it too, but I guess scons has some code of its own to handle that. Thanks for the info. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdel == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdel I am repeating my self but it's a feature that touch Abdel _nothing_ at the current tree. So I reckon it is special. We'll see. Abdel Bo have apologized already for this, could we please move Abdel on? It is not fair, I was away for the week-end and did not have the occasion to vent my frustration! JMarc
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx]
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak The objective is not to ruin anything but to complete Abdelrazak scons support. It is your parallel quest to eradicate config.h that makes me nervous :) JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 12:10:41PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: I am letting the current build to be completed before doing anything else. I notice that the moc'ed files are being compiled but they are called moc_ModuleName.cc instead of ModuleName_moc.C as I was used with the auto tools. I hope this is accounted for. Then I also see that it is also trying to compile uic_ModuleName.cc and this is completely new to me... They are generated and handled by scons automatically so you should not have to worry about them. I don't think so. Everything goes smooth until the final link step which miserably fails with tons of undefined references. These are partly due to the ordering of libraries in the link command (-lz should go after -lboost_*), partly due to some missing libraries (-lstdc++ -lcygwin -laspell), but the vast majority is a problem with that undefined reference to `vtable for ...' thing. I managed to achieve the final linking by hand so I think it's only that, nothing major. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Abdel == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdel I am repeating my self but it's a feature that touch Abdel _nothing_ at the current tree. So I reckon it is special. We'll see. Abdel Bo have apologized already for this, could we please move Abdel on? It is not fair, I was away for the week-end and did not have the occasion to vent my frustration! Bo didn't asked on Friday in the middle of our great battle? If not, sorry for that. Bo, say sorry to JMarc too please :-) Abdel.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx]
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Abdelrazak The objective is not to ruin anything but to complete Abdelrazak scons support. It is your parallel quest to eradicate config.h that makes me nervous :) N, not again this! ;-) More seriously, I have already agreed many times that it was not a good idea. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Lars Gullik Bjønnes a écrit : Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Georg Baum a écrit : | Joost Verburg wrote: | | If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be very | useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that break important | things. | Note that compilation with MSVC++ worked fine some months ago | (version 2003 | aka 7, not 6, that one is simply broken), and that the project files | (although now outdated) are available in development/Win32. | | The problem with the vcproj file is the config.h guessing. This is | simply not possible. I've read that scons is able now to generate | these files so I would advocate to remove this vcproj file from SVN | when/if Scons prove itself and stays in SVN. but scons currently doesn this on every build (ok, only first time is really slow... further builds configure is just somewhat slow), is it avoidable? If nothing happens with scons in the next couple of days, I am going to remove it from trunk. And the onus is not on auto* people, but on proponents of scons, you have to show at the lest the begnnings of it being able to do what auto* is doing for us. Could I suggest that you list the initial features that you want so that scons stays in SVN? This will help us defining the priorities. It seems to me that scons is already capable of building a linux executable albeit without client support. Am I right here Bo? On windows/mingw, I reckon it is not far from completion except for Aspell support and NLS. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:34:36PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 12:10:41PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: I am letting the current build to be completed before doing anything else. I notice that the moc'ed files are being compiled but they are called moc_ModuleName.cc instead of ModuleName_moc.C as I was used with the auto tools. I hope this is accounted for. Then I also see that it is also trying to compile uic_ModuleName.cc and this is completely new to me... They are generated and handled by scons automatically so you should not have to worry about them. I don't think so. Everything goes smooth until the final link step which miserably fails with tons of undefined references. These are partly due to the ordering of libraries in the link command (-lz should go after -lboost_*), partly due to some missing libraries (-lstdc++ -lcygwin -laspell), but the vast majority is a problem with that undefined reference to `vtable for ...' thing. I managed to achieve the final linking by hand so I think it's only that, nothing major. Are you saying that .C files are recognized as C++ sources for you? Then, I am sorry, but SCons has wrong support for cygwin. For example, I see the following in site-packages/SCons/Util.py: if sys.platform == 'cygwin': # On Cygwin, os.path.normcase() lies, so just report back the # fact that the underlying Windows OS is case-insensitive. def case_sensitive_suffixes(s1, s2): return 0 else: def case_sensitive_suffixes(s1, s2): return (os.path.normcase(s1) != os.path.normcase(s2)) and also this one in site-packages/SCons/FS.py: # Cygwin's os.path.normcase pretends it's on a case-sensitive filesystem. _is_cygwin = sys.platform == cygwin if os.path.normcase(TeSt) == os.path.normpath(TeSt) and not _is_cygwin: def _my_normcase(x): return x else: def _my_normcase(x): return string.upper(x) It is utterly ridiculous that they are not able to spot the difference between .c and .C on Cygwin and they are able to on native Windows. -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:34:36PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Are you saying that .C files are recognized as C++ sources for you? Yes. IIRC scons call gcc for .C file and g++ for linking. That works perfectly. Abdel.
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Bo didn't asked on Friday in the middle of our great battle? If not, sorry for that. Bo, say sorry to JMarc too please :-) OK. I aplogize, although there is a draft email I wrote yesterday, trying to vent my own anger. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Could I suggest that you list the initial features that you want so that scons stays in SVN? Lars wants an immediate replacement for autotools. That will not happen any time soon. It seems to me that scons is already capable of building a linux executable albeit without client support. Am I right here Bo? And many --enable--xxx options, which I am not sure if they are actually used (or useful). On windows/mingw, I reckon it is not far from completion except for Aspell support and NLS. Yeah, I can finally ignore the configure script. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Joost If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be Joost very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that Joost break important things. It used to work. What is broken now? With some hacks to the projects files you can probably compile it, but LyX itself will have bugs due to undefined behavior of certain functions. For example, the MinGW implementations of functions to call other applications often do not show a console window, while the Microsoft implementation does. This means that you get popping up windows all the time. Joost
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Enrico Forestieri a écrit : On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:34:36PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Are you saying that .C files are recognized as C++ sources for you? Yes. IIRC scons call gcc for .C file and g++ for linking. That works perfectly. I start thinking that scons is too much Windows centric... -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
I start thinking that scons is too much Windows centric... Oooh? It worked without any trouble on linux, and I spent several days to fix it for windows. You call this windows centric? Of couse, you can call autotools *nix cantric since they rely on sh/sed etc. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Joost == Joost Verburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joost For example, the MinGW implementations of functions to call Joost other applications often do not show a console window, while Joost the Microsoft implementation does. This means that you get Joost popping up windows all the time. This means we should use something else than system() for running programs, right? Or add proper options when in Systemcall? This would be a good thing to do anyway. JMarc
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: This means we should use something else than system() for running programs, right? Or add proper options when in Systemcall? This would be a good thing to do anyway. If I remember correctly, the forkedcall stuff is the problem, not system(). Joost
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
This means we should use something else than system() for running programs, right? Or add proper options when in Systemcall? This would be a good thing to do anyway. Exactly, under windows, use one of the process APIs. Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:14:43AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: I start thinking that scons is too much Windows centric... Oooh? It worked without any trouble on linux, and I spent several days to fix it for windows. You call this windows centric? Of couse, you can call autotools *nix cantric since they rely on sh/sed etc. Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? -- Enrico
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
Abdel said that scons is able to recognize .C files as C++ source files on a native Windows environment. Why it is not able to do so with cygwin? I did not read that email in detail, what I know is that gcc tells the content of a .c file and make itself g++ if the file is indeed in C++. However, at linking time, gcc and g++ may lead to different results (stdc++.so etc). A renaming of lyx .C files will never happen so we will have to use the current solution, .i.e., force moc'ing, and force the use of g++ (I know, this leads to non-portability. but this is life). Bo
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:35:34PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: I do welcome the effort to see if the current build system is I don't think your wording is very welcoming, to quote you: I hate it already, please revert, I don't care one iota, etc... I presume that's the way you think a benevolent dictator should act but that's definitely not welcoming IMHO. Well, we were far from consensus in the scons discussion. You should have said something then. Because without anyone saying anything it's difficult to get an idea. 3 saying yes and 0 saying no... I think you get the picture. I found my point of view made pretty clear by others: No step behind on what we have on *nix nowadays. Andre'
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:19:49PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote: Andre Poenitz wrote: Last time the Windows developers wanted to have .vcproj files. They got them. If compilation with MSVC++ worked, the vcproj files would be very useful. However, there are still incompatibilities that break important things. I thought Asger indeed compiled LyX with VS 2003 'natively'. And I know he doesn't like cygwin, so I don't think there were too many bandaids. Andre'
Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:57:12AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: It should not be in svn beforee it at least can compile linux trivially. And it will work trivially under windows soon, if more testing, as a result of more publicity is allowed. I guarantee you that it will achieve a state of convenience that autotools will never achieve there. I must admit that I got pretty angry when you commited this without evnen asking for comments or if it was ok. I apologize if you feel that way. I had a feeling from our previous discussions that you will be staying out of this scons business (although you did not like the idea) and let *us* do what we want. So, can we cheer up a little bit and see what others say about this scons build? I like the idea of scons and vote to keep it in the trunk. However, if the final disposition of this argument is to have scons being tweaked in some branch, so be it. When scons install works, I will look at making it part of my daily builds. Perhaps I can make the 3AM one use make and the 3PM one use scons... ---Kayvan -- Kayvan A. Sylvan | Proud husband of | Father to my kids: Sylvan Associates, Inc. | Laura Isabella Sylvan, | Katherine Yelena (8/8/89) http://sylvan.com/~kayvan | my beautiful Queen.| Robin Gregory (2/28/92)
