On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Georg Baum <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> 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
