On 14.10.2013 10:12, janI wrote:
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.
Don't be sorry. I have been to too many mathematics lectures to mind
being a little confused :-)
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).
Thanks for the explanation. I understand your approach a little better now.
Just one more question. Do you have something in mind for 1) like CMake
where you have a description of WHAT to build and then derive from that
a set of files (Makefiles for Unix, or a Visual Studio solution file)
that define HOW to build?
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).
It is perfectly OK to take small steps. That is maybe the only way to
make any progress in system as complex as our build system. I would
like to see you succeed and will help you as good as I can.
-Andre
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
