On 14 October 2013 11:55, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 :-)
Do you also happen to be a numeric analysis geek like myself ? > > > >> 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? > > I like the CMake structure, and if you look at the .vproj files you will see the following structure (high level). - Description of the project, common directories etc. - Description of the HOWTO, compiler options etc. - Description of the WHAT, which files. Sadly, but true, the structure is nice BUT whenever you have a file exception, you mix. HOWTO and WHAT. I believe we can make a proof of concept with the .proj files, then extent/enhance the XML structure to e.g. get different compiler options from 1 common file. The end result could be 1 XML file for each module describing WHAT to make, with WHICH options, and have 1 (or more) XML files describing the HOWTO. Having that we can use XSLT to generate Makefile, .proj or a third type of files. The XSLT would run as part of configure. > > > >> >> 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. > thx for your promise. I am no oracle, and have no perfect solution (then I had made it), so much of this project is to experiment and find solutions and for that its good to discuss. rgds jan I. > > -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> >>>> <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:**<http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Build_System_Analysis:**> >>>> capstone2013_windows_build<htt**p://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<http://openoffice.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.**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 > >
