On 14 October 2013 10:00, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14.10.2013 09:38, janI wrote: > >> Sorry for top posting. >> >> There seems to be some confusion, about the project. >> >> The goal is not to replace the current system (this is only a potential >> long time goal). The goal is to make a parallel build system suited for >> windows developers, and then in a second phase generate makefiles for >> linux. >> > > Now I am confused :-) Can you tell us more about the goal of the new > build system? Is it an improvement of building speed (or reduction of time > to build), increase the ease of use, or make the system better > understandable to developers. >
Sorry for confusing you. Maybe my problem is that I see things in stages. I see it like this: Stage 1) Make a visual studio based build system, suitable for windows developers, and to proof it is possible. Stage 2) Take a long discussion in here, on how this system can/should be expanded to cover all our platforms ---- just for the discussion, assume my ideas are the outcome of 2) Stage 3) Expand 1) to make it cover all our platforms Stage 4) Enable it so that we on linux use standard build mechanisms (e.g. make) enabling us to be part of standard distributions. Stage 5) Remove the current build system. The project I mentor right now, primeraly covers stage 1) and if time permit part of 2) and 3). > An increase of the build speed would be great on Windows but hardly > possible or necessary on Linux. > agreed. > > Can you tell us how we can manage a third (and possibly a fourth) build > system when today we have problems maintaining two? > Yes, we keep it in the branch until we want to replace the 2 others OR if we agree live with a third system for a short period of time (this should only be done, if we see a path and have resources to complete the remaining steps). > > Again, I don't want to sound too negative or discourage you. I just want > to understand what you have in mind. > Which is very fair. It was a pleasant surprise to me, that the project was selected, so now we have start working, and I dont have all the answers right now, just a direction. I hope this clarifies some of your confusion, its important that we all have the same view. I am sorry for trying to take small steps, but integrating genLang have shown me a lot of the difficulties ahead, and I made a positive decision not to try to change the current system, that would have been too complex (at least for me). rgds jan I. rgds jan I. > > -Andre > > >> In the beginning of this thread I posted information, which is repeated >> below: >> ====== >> >> Project >> >> SVN Branch: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/openoffice/branches/**capstone2013<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/capstone2013> >> >> Motivation >> >> AOO’s current build system is old, non-standard, hard to understand, and >> undocumented. To attract new developers, Apache Software Foundation would >> like to create a new/modern build system. >> >> Objectives >> >> 1. >> >> >> Develop a build system for Microsoft Visual Studio (Windows), and >> Linux. >> Focus on making Windows development easy. >> 2. >> >> Implement the new build system in parallel with the current build >> system. >> 3. >> >> Help test the new new build system. >> >> >> Deliverables >> >> 1. >> >> >> “How to” report before programming. >> 2. In June, a build system capable of generating AOO in Windows and in >> >> Linux >> >> >> =============== >> I have also made a wiki page (also published earlier): >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Build_System_Analysis:** >> capstone2013_windows_build<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:capstone2013_windows_build> >> >> I encourage everyone to participate in the discussions. >> >> rgds >> jan I. >> >> >> >> On 14 October 2013 09:26, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 12.10.2013 23:33, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps you will unlock the path to a digitally signed build for >>>> Windows. >>>> That would be huge! >>>> >>>> I don't think that that is a shortcoming of the build system (which >>>> has >>>> >>> many). It is more a restriction on the administrative side of OpenOffice >>> and Apache. >>> >>> -Andre >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------****----------------------------** >>> --**--------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**pache.org<http://apache.org> >>> <dev-unsubscribe@**openoffice.apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> >>> > >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> >>> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
