RE: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use
I'm in. Any objections? BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu build structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of code changes for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them compatible with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I think its a necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of the exec that doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. Are you going to check in your wrapper for MSVC too? It would be a great help. Which XDk version are you using? So. Are we go for 4.1.0? Yes Please. Suhaib Greg Suhaib M. Siddiqi [EMAIL PROTECTED]@opendx.watson.ibm.com on 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de cc: Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed XDK 6.2 and MSVC 6.0 out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual editings, if we are set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version number now, instead of redoing it again. After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of new headers and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source patching. M$ is about to release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated library and header changes again. We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is released. It may make binaries unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped now before we get into another cycle of unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. Suhaib
RE: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use
A couple of weeks ago I asked for tests of a large patch submitted from redhat. What kind of large patch was it from RedHat? I do not remember about it. The OpenDx 4.0.10 as of march 13th CVS, using MOTIF 2.1.21, GCC 2.95.2, X11R6.4 (which is XFree86 4.0 final Release), ImageMagick 5.1.1 netCDF, CDF 2.7 and HDF4.1r3 builds on my RedHat Linux 6.1 and RedHat RawHide without troubles, also binaries are stable. I do not see a diferences (stability etc) between binaries I released on march 3rd, after NetCDF bug was fixed therefore I did not bother to package it. Suhaib We heard back from Jeff with his partial OK, and that's it. I think these patches should go in and we should fix obvious breakage prior to 4.1 . Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in. Any objections? BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu build structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of code changes for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them compatible with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I think its a necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of the exec that doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. So. Are we go for 4.1.0? Greg Suhaib M. Siddiqi [EMAIL PROTECTED]@opendx.watson.ibm.com on 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de cc: Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed XDK 6.2 and MSVC 6.0 out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual editings, if we are set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version number now, instead of redoing it again. After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of new headers and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source patching. M$ is about to release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated library and header changes again. We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is released. It may make binaries unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped now before we get into another cycle of unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. Suhaib
Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use
Nice to know it isn't just me. Patch is not descending the directory structure. I have a question in to Elliot on how to apply it, and will post his answer. Pete Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote: Well, I got the patch from RedHat site: http://people.redhat.com/sopwith/opendx-misc.patch If I try to apply it to DX code retrieved from CVS yesterday. 99% of hunks failed. I tried patch -p1 and patch -p0 options. I cannot get patches applied? So, what am i doing wrong? May be I forgot, over night, how to apply patches ;-) Suhaib -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Daniel Kirchner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:22 AM To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use A couple of weeks ago I asked for tests of a large patch submitted from redhat. We heard back from Jeff with his partial OK, and that's it. I think these patches should go in and we should fix obvious breakage prior to 4.1 . Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in. Any objections? BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu build structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of code changes for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them compatible with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I think its a necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of the exec that doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. So. Are we go for 4.1.0? Greg Suhaib M. Siddiqi [EMAIL PROTECTED]@opendx.watson.ibm.com on 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de cc: Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed XDK 6.2 and MSVC 6.0 out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual editings, if we are set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version number now, instead of redoing it again. After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of new headers and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source patching. M$ is about to release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated library and header changes again. We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is released. It may make binaries unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped now before we get into another cycle of unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. Suhaib
Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use
I question this patch before the bump. We've seen stable builds with what we have now. I started to perform a lot of the same stuff they did at Redhat, and found that at times things destabilized. I'd rather get 4.1.0 out with what we have, get the readmes, etc that we're supposed to add and then do the bump. Past that, then apply all these patches and start working on an odd number revision again. I have a lot more to add than just the changing the return NULLs to return ERRORs. Basically they just cleaned up some minor compiler errors. David A couple of weeks ago I asked for tests of a large patch submitted from redhat. We heard back from Jeff with his partial OK, and that's it. I think these patches should go in and we should fix obvious breakage prior to 4.1 . Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in. Any objections? BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu build structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of code changes for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them compatible with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I think its a necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of the exec that doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. So. Are we go for 4.1.0? Greg Suhaib M. Siddiqi [EMAIL PROTECTED]@opendx.watson.ibm.com on 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de cc: Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed XDK 6.2 and MSVC 6.0 out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual editings, if we are set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version number now, instead of redoing it again. After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of new headers and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source patching. M$ is about to release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated library and header changes again. We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is released. It may make binaries unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped now before we get into another cycle of unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. Suhaib -- . David L. Thompson The University of Montana mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Science Department http://www.cs.umt.edu/u/dthompsn Missoula, MT 59812 Work Phone : (406)257-8530
RE: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use
Pete If you are applying patch on Red Hat Linux box, then you might send message to Elliot that the patch executable which comes with RedHat 6.1 does not apply this patch it failed 99% of the hunks. i ftp over the same file to SGI IRIX 6.5 and patch -p0 opendx-misc.patch works like a charm. It is true that most of warnings on SGI IRIX 6.5.5 disappeared, but I do not know how good would be the executables. I would will test on my SGI then build it on my Linux, Cygwin and Solaris 8 (Early Access) boxes this afternoon. Would post later, ater testinge dxsamples, if something crashes on any of these boxes. Suhaib -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Daniel Kirchner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:22 PM To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use Nice to know it isn't just me. Patch is not descending the directory structure. I have a question in to Elliot on how to apply it, and will post his answer. Pete Suhaib M. Siddiqi wrote: Well, I got the patch from RedHat site: http://people.redhat.com/sopwith/opendx-misc.patch If I try to apply it to DX code retrieved from CVS yesterday. 99% of hunks failed. I tried patch -p1 and patch -p0 options. I cannot get patches applied? So, what am i doing wrong? May be I forgot, over night, how to apply patches ;-) Suhaib -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Daniel Kirchner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:22 AM To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use A couple of weeks ago I asked for tests of a large patch submitted from redhat. We heard back from Jeff with his partial OK, and that's it. I think these patches should go in and we should fix obvious breakage prior to 4.1 . Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in. Any objections? BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu build structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of code changes for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them compatible with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I think its a necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of the exec that doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. So. Are we go for 4.1.0? Greg Suhaib M. Siddiqi [EMAIL PROTECTED]@opendx.watson.ibm.com on 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de cc: Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed XDK 6.2 and MSVC 6.0 out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual editings, if we are set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version number now, instead of redoing it again. After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of new headers and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source patching. M$ is about to release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated library and header changes again. We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is released. It may make binaries unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped now before we get into another cycle of unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. Suhaib
