Re: State of master and release process

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 17.02.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


tars from current master are there:


Now everything works for me - the .gz and the .xz file is correct 
(opened with WinRar).


regards Uwe

Re: State of master and release process

[Liviu Andronic]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:31:47AM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> >> For the fun of it I dug up a spare Windows machine and tried unpacking
>> >> the beta2 XZ archive using 7-Zip and PeaZip, two open-source file
>> >> archivers for Windows, and ran into the same 100-char truncation
>> >> issue. However, no such issues with Total Commander's internal tar
>> >> unpacker. For instance, I get the full:
>> >>
>> >> lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_long.hpp
>> >>
>> >> Uwe, could you try Total Commander? It comes with an easy to use GUI.
>> >
>> > I am not sure it is worth experimenting since we have now switch from
>> > tar-pax to the more widely available ustar format. It is this new tarball
>> > that should be considered.
>>
>> Scott, can you post the new tarball for Liviu to test? Pavel
>
> tars from current master are there:
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7mwmbplao6cs9jq/AAARRH4kzMKacA3k0hh_goQea?dl=0
>

The XZ archive seems to work fine with 7-zip.  No truncated file names
that I can see.
Liviu

> I did not post publicly the one I sent to Uwe because it was marked as
> beta3 and I did not want that out there in the case we did not go with
> beta3 (which we did not).
>
> Scott



-- 
Do you think you know what math is?
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/ian-stewart-2013-08-02
Or what it means to be intelligent?
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-duncan-2013-08-30
Think again:
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/library

Re: State of master and release process

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:31:47AM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> For the fun of it I dug up a spare Windows machine and tried unpacking
> >> the beta2 XZ archive using 7-Zip and PeaZip, two open-source file
> >> archivers for Windows, and ran into the same 100-char truncation
> >> issue. However, no such issues with Total Commander's internal tar
> >> unpacker. For instance, I get the full:
> >>   
> >> lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_long.hpp
> >>
> >> Uwe, could you try Total Commander? It comes with an easy to use GUI.
> >
> > I am not sure it is worth experimenting since we have now switch from 
> > tar-pax to the more widely available ustar format. It is this new tarball 
> > that should be considered.
> 
> Scott, can you post the new tarball for Liviu to test? Pavel

tars from current master are there:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7mwmbplao6cs9jq/AAARRH4kzMKacA3k0hh_goQea?dl=0

I did not post publicly the one I sent to Uwe because it was marked as
beta3 and I did not want that out there in the case we did not go with
beta3 (which we did not).

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of master and release process

[Pavel Sanda]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> For the fun of it I dug up a spare Windows machine and tried unpacking
>> the beta2 XZ archive using 7-Zip and PeaZip, two open-source file
>> archivers for Windows, and ran into the same 100-char truncation
>> issue. However, no such issues with Total Commander's internal tar
>> unpacker. For instance, I get the full:
>>   
>> lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_long.hpp
>>
>> Uwe, could you try Total Commander? It comes with an easy to use GUI.
>
> I am not sure it is worth experimenting since we have now switch from 
> tar-pax to the more widely available ustar format. It is this new tarball 
> that should be considered.

Scott, can you post the new tarball for Liviu to test? Pavel

Re: State of master and release process

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 17/02/2016 17:51, Liviu Andronic a écrit :

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Georg Baum
 wrote:

is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.


I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the
tar with the tool Uwe used. There are many utilities that support tar, and I
know that at least one (GNU tar on cygwin or from GnuWin32) can extract the
archive correctly. Maybe others understand it as well.


For the fun of it I dug up a spare Windows machine and tried unpacking
the beta2 XZ archive using 7-Zip and PeaZip, two open-source file
archivers for Windows, and ran into the same 100-char truncation
issue. However, no such issues with Total Commander's internal tar
unpacker. For instance, I get the full:
  
lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_long.hpp

Uwe, could you try Total Commander? It comes with an easy to use GUI.


I am not sure it is worth experimenting since we have now switch from 
tar-pax to the more widely available ustar format. It is this new 
tarball that should be considered.


JMarc

Re: State of master and release process

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Georg Baum
 wrote:
>> is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
>> is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
>> a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.
>
> I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the
> tar with the tool Uwe used. There are many utilities that support tar, and I
> know that at least one (GNU tar on cygwin or from GnuWin32) can extract the
> archive correctly. Maybe others understand it as well.
>
For the fun of it I dug up a spare Windows machine and tried unpacking
the beta2 XZ archive using 7-Zip and PeaZip, two open-source file
archivers for Windows, and ran into the same 100-char truncation
issue. However, no such issues with Total Commander's internal tar
unpacker. For instance, I get the full:
 
lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_long.hpp

Uwe, could you try Total Commander? It comes with an easy to use GUI.

Regards,
Liviu


>> If the zip file extracts correctly and Uwe can compile for Windows, does
>> this mean that we should release beta2 as long as we post the zip file
>> and in the email announcement we recommend the zip file if compiling on
>> Windows?
>
> I'd do that.
>
>> Or because the tar has issues with being extracted on Windows,
>> we must move to beta3 which hopefully (still not confirmed) would
>> produce a tar that can be extracted correctly with the Windows build? A
>> separate question is does it matter that the 'make lyxdist' command for
>> beta2 did not produce the zip file that would be posted as beta2?
>
> IMHO it does not matter. The important thing is that the files contained in
> the zip and the tar are identical. How this is checked (manually or by
> creating both with a Makefile rule) is not important. Also, I would consider
> the tag in git the authorative source. I does not say anything about tar
> packages. I think it is the jopb of the releases manager to ensure that the
> published source archives are identical with the tagged git source.
>
>> It seems to me that although it is indicative of an inexperienced
>> release manager, the best thing would be to move to beta3, and confirm
>> with Uwe before posting the files that the archive can be extracted and
>> that the Windows build succeeds. I don't have a strong opinion on this
>> though.
>
> I don't think it is needed. Using the better format for the next release (I
> hope there will not be a beta 3) is good, but not required for beta2.
>
>
> Georg
>



-- 
Do you think you know what math is?
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/ian-stewart-2013-08-02
Or what it means to be intelligent?
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-duncan-2013-08-30
Think again:
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/library

Re: State of master and release process

[Stephan Witt]

Am 17.02.2016 um 01:01 schrieb Uwe Stöhr :
> 
> Am 16.02.2016 um 20:06 schrieb Georg Baum:
> 
>> I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the
>> tar with the tool Uwe used.
> 
> It is a simple path name length restriction. In the tar the path cannot be 
> longer than
> 
> lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_
> 
> These are 100 characters. All paths longer than 100 chars are truncated. 
> Since Windows itself does not support tar, I use WinRar. Maybe this program 
> has a bug or the tar specs have a limitation on Windows.
> 
> However, the Zip is only 3 MB larger than the Tar. so why not using Zip in 
> future? I don't think that the 3 MB more are important.

Zip has another problem. The encoding of the file names is undefined.

Stephan

Re: State of master and release process

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:01:42AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 16.02.2016 um 20:06 schrieb Georg Baum:
> 
> >I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the
> >tar with the tool Uwe used.
> 
> It is a simple path name length restriction. In the tar the path cannot be
> longer than
> 
> lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_
> 
> These are 100 characters. All paths longer than 100 chars are truncated.
> Since Windows itself does not support tar, I use WinRar. Maybe this program
> has a bug or the tar specs have a limitation on Windows.
> 
> However, the Zip is only 3 MB larger than the Tar. so why not using Zip in
> future? I don't think that the 3 MB more are important.

Hopefully the tar issue is fixed now. I think it would be nice to keep
using tar, since that is what we have been doing. If the tar does not
work for you though, then we should indeed consider using zip.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of master and release process

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:06:14PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> 
> > Just an update for those who have not been following the other
> > conversations, and also a question:
> > 
> > beta2 has been tagged, and the tars have been posted. We have not
> > formally released it because we are still trying to make it so that it
> > is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
> > is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
> > a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.
> 
> I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the 
> tar with the tool Uwe used. There are many utilities that support tar, and I 
> know that at least one (GNU tar on cygwin or from GnuWin32) can extract the 
> archive correctly. Maybe others understand it as well.

I see. I will put a note about this in the announcement email.

> > If the zip file extracts correctly and Uwe can compile for Windows, does
> > this mean that we should release beta2 as long as we post the zip file
> > and in the email announcement we recommend the zip file if compiling on
> > Windows?
> 
> I'd do that.

OK. I think Peter and Uwe support this so let's go forward with beta2. I
have uploaded the Windows and Mac binaries and will send the
announcement email soon.

> > Or because the tar has issues with being extracted on Windows,
> > we must move to beta3 which hopefully (still not confirmed) would
> > produce a tar that can be extracted correctly with the Windows build? A
> > separate question is does it matter that the 'make lyxdist' command for
> > beta2 did not produce the zip file that would be posted as beta2?
> 
> IMHO it does not matter. The important thing is that the files contained in 
> the zip and the tar are identical. How this is checked (manually or by 
> creating both with a Makefile rule) is not important. Also, I would consider 
> the tag in git the authorative source. I does not say anything about tar 
> packages. I think it is the jopb of the releases manager to ensure that the 
> published source archives are identical with the tagged git source.

Works for me.

> > It seems to me that although it is indicative of an inexperienced
> > release manager, the best thing would be to move to beta3, and confirm
> > with Uwe before posting the files that the archive can be extracted and
> > that the Windows build succeeds. I don't have a strong opinion on this
> > though.
> 
> I don't think it is needed. Using the better format for the next release (I 
> hope there will not be a beta 3) is good, but not required for beta2.

OK.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of master and release process

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:11:03AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 15/02/2016 22:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >beta2 has been tagged, and the tars have been posted. We have not
> >formally released it because we are still trying to make it so that it
> >is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
> >is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
> >a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.
> 
> Scott, Uwe, note that Peter changed the tar format at 1660e096c. It would be
> interesting to see whether Uwe can now open our regular tar files in
> windows.

Uwe I just sent you a link to test. Does it work for you?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of master and release process

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 16.02.2016 um 20:06 schrieb Georg Baum:


I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the
tar with the tool Uwe used.


It is a simple path name length restriction. In the tar the path cannot 
be longer than


lyx-2.2.0beta2\3rdparty\boost\boost\numeric\conversion\detail\preprocessed\numeric_cast_traits_long_

These are 100 characters. All paths longer than 100 chars are truncated. 
Since Windows itself does not support tar, I use WinRar. Maybe this 
program has a bug or the tar specs have a limitation on Windows.


However, the Zip is only 3 MB larger than the Tar. so why not using Zip 
in future? I don't think that the 3 MB more are important.


regards Uwe

Re: State of master and release process

[Georg Baum]

Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> Just an update for those who have not been following the other
> conversations, and also a question:
> 
> beta2 has been tagged, and the tars have been posted. We have not
> formally released it because we are still trying to make it so that it
> is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
> is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
> a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.

I would formulate it differently: There is a problem  with extracting the 
tar with the tool Uwe used. There are many utilities that support tar, and I 
know that at least one (GNU tar on cygwin or from GnuWin32) can extract the 
archive correctly. Maybe others understand it as well.

> If the zip file extracts correctly and Uwe can compile for Windows, does
> this mean that we should release beta2 as long as we post the zip file
> and in the email announcement we recommend the zip file if compiling on
> Windows?

I'd do that.

> Or because the tar has issues with being extracted on Windows,
> we must move to beta3 which hopefully (still not confirmed) would
> produce a tar that can be extracted correctly with the Windows build? A
> separate question is does it matter that the 'make lyxdist' command for
> beta2 did not produce the zip file that would be posted as beta2?

IMHO it does not matter. The important thing is that the files contained in 
the zip and the tar are identical. How this is checked (manually or by 
creating both with a Makefile rule) is not important. Also, I would consider 
the tag in git the authorative source. I does not say anything about tar 
packages. I think it is the jopb of the releases manager to ensure that the 
published source archives are identical with the tagged git source.

> It seems to me that although it is indicative of an inexperienced
> release manager, the best thing would be to move to beta3, and confirm
> with Uwe before posting the files that the archive can be extracted and
> that the Windows build succeeds. I don't have a strong opinion on this
> though.

I don't think it is needed. Using the better format for the next release (I 
hope there will not be a beta 3) is good, but not required for beta2.


Georg

Re: State of master and release process

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 15.02.2016 um 22:33 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:

Just an update for those who have not been following the other
conversations, and also a question:

beta2 has been tagged, and the tars have been posted. We have not
formally released it because we are still trying to make it so that it
is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.

If the zip file extracts correctly and Uwe can compile for Windows, does
this mean that we should release beta2 as long as we post the zip file
and in the email announcement we recommend the zip file if compiling on
Windows? Or because the tar has issues with being extracted on Windows,
we must move to beta3 which hopefully (still not confirmed) would
produce a tar that can be extracted correctly with the Windows build? A
separate question is does it matter that the 'make lyxdist' command for
beta2 did not produce the zip file that would be posted as beta2?

It seems to me that although it is indicative of an inexperienced
release manager, the best thing would be to move to beta3, and confirm
with Uwe before posting the files that the archive can be extracted and
that the Windows build succeeds. I don't have a strong opinion on this
though.

On a separate note, master branch is open. Depending on the above
discussion we might move very soon to beta3, so please nothing
non-trivial.

Scott



I would say: release tag 2.2.0beta2.
There is only the problem with untaring on Windows

For beta3:

- add zip to lyxdist
- some cleanup in boost

Peter

Re: State of master and release process

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 15/02/2016 22:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

beta2 has been tagged, and the tars have been posted. We have not
formally released it because we are still trying to make it so that it
is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.


Scott, Uwe, note that Peter changed the tar format at 1660e096c. It 
would be interesting to see whether Uwe can now open our regular tar 
files in windows.


JMarc

Re: State of master and release process

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 15.02.2016 um 22:33 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


If the zip file extracts correctly and Uwe can compile for Windows,


I can. The Zip file is sufficient to build LyX. Here's the installer:
http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.2.0beta-2/

regards Uwe

State of master and release process

[Scott Kostyshak]

Just an update for those who have not been following the other
conversations, and also a question:

beta2 has been tagged, and the tars have been posted. We have not
formally released it because we are still trying to make it so that it
is possible to compile on Windows from the self-contained archive. There
is a problem with extracting the tar on Windows, so I have just sent Uwe
a zip file containing the same files that the tar contains.

If the zip file extracts correctly and Uwe can compile for Windows, does
this mean that we should release beta2 as long as we post the zip file
and in the email announcement we recommend the zip file if compiling on
Windows? Or because the tar has issues with being extracted on Windows,
we must move to beta3 which hopefully (still not confirmed) would
produce a tar that can be extracted correctly with the Windows build? A
separate question is does it matter that the 'make lyxdist' command for
beta2 did not produce the zip file that would be posted as beta2?

It seems to me that although it is indicative of an inexperienced
release manager, the best thing would be to move to beta3, and confirm
with Uwe before posting the files that the archive can be extracted and
that the Windows build succeeds. I don't have a strong opinion on this
though.

On a separate note, master branch is open. Depending on the above
discussion we might move very soon to beta3, so please nothing
non-trivial.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature