Re: Build System Improvements
On 17/10/2014 Andre Fischer wrote: improving the build system. I have in mind a "soft conversion" that gradually replaces parts of the existing build system, not a big push that takes years to complete and then breaks everything. This seems a reasonable approach. But this is the n-th time that someone proposes a new build system. Can I ask at least if there is anything (in terms of knowledge, if not of code) that came out of https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:capstone2013_windows_build that can be reused here? The aim of that project was not reached, but still the analysis and discussion might be worth reviewing (probably you already did). And maybe there is some knowledge from that project that hasn't been documented yet. If you don't object to this general plan then I would start the XML conversion with the prj/build.lst files as proof of concept. I would also start to write Wiki pages that explain in more detail how the current build process works, what its draw backs are, and how, in my opinion, it can be improved. This is very good; had it come one month ago, we could have submitted it as a Capstone project for 2014 so that you would get a small team of students to mentor for a few months. But there might be other opportunities if you believe that new developers can work on this task without an excessive strain on you as a mentor. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Build System Improvements
Am 17.10.2014 20:50, schrieb Greg Bullock: On 10/17/2014 4:38 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 17.10.2014 13:21, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi Andre, will these in the long term lead to a system, where AOO can be build directly in MS Visual Studio without need of cygwin? Hi Regina, this is not a direct goal but could become possible as a side effect. One of the key ideas of the proposed approach is to further separate between dependencies and build logic and have scripts/programs transform the dependencies into actual make files. Once the dependencies are present as uniform XML files we can more easily write a transformation into Visual Studio solution files. But this will still not be a trivial task. It would help me if you or somebody else could provide a description or even a specification of Visual Studio solution/project files. -Andre Hi Andre. With other projects, I've had generally good success using CMake, which can generate Visual Studio solution/project files of various VS versions (as well as makefiles and other types of "project" files). Even if the team prefers not to standardize on CMake for the entire build process (although, that may be a worthy option), the dependencies and build logic from the XML files could be used to generate a set of CMakeList.txt files, and with those at hand, CMake can then take over and generate the Visual Studio solution/project files. Hi Greg, as you already hinted at, I intend the XML files to be an intermediate file format. Easy to read so that we can write translations into actual build systems like CMake. -Andre Regards. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: 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
Re: Build System Improvements
Am 17.10.2014 19:33, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: As you may know, in the past years I have made a couple of experiments regarding the build system of AOO. With the resulting experience I would now like to start to work on improving the build system. I have in mind a "soft conversion" that gradually replaces parts of the existing build system, not a big push that takes years to complete and then breaks everything. I would like to start with some under-the-hood changes to how the build process is controlled. At the moment we have prj/build.lst files that control how build.pl builds the dmake modules. Then there are makefiles.mk in directories of dmake modules and finally we have makefiles in gbuild modules. All of them are not makefiles in the classical sense, i.e. they seldomly contain directives of how to build a target. They are data files that primarily define dependencies between targets or, for example, which object files go into a shared library. They use three different, mostly unspecified and undocumented, notations. The first work item would be the conversion of these files into a unified XML syntax. At first these XML files would be converted back to the old syntax on-demand and on-the-fly so that the old build tool chain can still be used. Q: Could a build change like this just be used for SOME modules without having to convert back? The conversion back to the existing build.lst, dmake or gbuild files is just a migration step. The goal is to replace all these with a unified build system. But that second step is much harder than the first. Subsequent steps would then improve or replace parts of this tool chain. If you don't object to this general plan then I would start the XML conversion with the prj/build.lst files as proof of concept. I would also start to write Wiki pages that explain in more detail how the current build process works, what its draw backs are, and how, in my opinion, it can be improved. Best regards, Andre This sounds interesting and I can't wait to see what happens next! Is this Ant-like? Or can be used by Ant...which we use already for some things? The format will borrow some ideas from ant but should be a lot simpler. It is intended to be read by transformation scripts and I certainly don't want to write an parser for Ant files :-) -Andre - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Build System Improvements
Am 18.10.2014 11:56, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 17/10/2014 Andre Fischer wrote: improving the build system. I have in mind a "soft conversion" that gradually replaces parts of the existing build system, not a big push that takes years to complete and then breaks everything. This seems a reasonable approach. But this is the n-th time that someone proposes a new build system. I am aware of that and understand that you are sceptical. For that very reason I propose a first step that just introduces a different notation for our makefiles without (big) changes to the underlying build system. The next step of actually replacing parts of the build system with something better is certainly much harder and less likely to succeed. Can I ask at least if there is anything (in terms of knowledge, if not of code) that came out of https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:capstone2013_windows_build that can be reused here? The aim of that project was not reached, but still the analysis and discussion might be worth reviewing (probably you already did). And maybe there is some knowledge from that project that hasn't been documented yet. If you don't object to this general plan then I would start the XML conversion with the prj/build.lst files as proof of concept. I would also start to write Wiki pages that explain in more detail how the current build process works, what its draw backs are, and how, in my opinion, it can be improved. This is very good; had it come one month ago, we could have submitted it as a Capstone project for 2014 so that you would get a small team of students to mentor for a few months. But there might be other opportunities if you believe that new developers can work on this task without an excessive strain on you as a mentor. I do. But I need a week or two to set this all up. Regards, Andre Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: 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
Re: AOO at T-DOSE
Would be good to get a recording of the talk and maybe some information about past events and development. Thanks. On 10/18/14, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > Hello, > > T-DOSE is a free and yearly event held in The Netherlands to promote use > and development of Free Software. During this event Free Software > projects, developers and visitors can exchange ideas and knowledge. This > years event will be held on 25 and 26 October 2014 at the Fontys > University of Applied Science in Eindhoven. > > http://www.t-dose.org/ > > Like in the past Apache OpenOffice will participate with a booth. > > Dutch speaking booth helpers are welcome. > > You are invited to visit us at T-DOSE (even if you are not dutch > speaking booth helpers ;-) ). > > Regards > Michael > > -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Results and reviews from Conference in Panama
During the past week I was able to participate in the events in Panama previously mentioned on a past email[1]. The event was a double participation about Free Software development in central america and Panama (the host country). It included a series of talks along side other speakers like Mozilla Foundation reps and Foundations from Spain and other areas of the spanish speaking community. My conference titled "Governance and participation in Free software communities" was invitive to many of the people including college officials and people interested in how communities work in the open source ecosystem. The conference was recorded and is now available on youtube here[2]. The second event was a panel-style participation in City of Knowledge, Panama, and the panel talk around the topics of Free software as a medium for innovation and sustentability. The conference was not video recorded but some audio clips were put together and also available in youtube[3]. Both events were given in Spanish and I think it would be important to have some kind of vehicle to empower the community to attend these events with the help of the Apache foundation. This is a marketing task that help people get more information about our project and potentiate it's deployments and contributions to the project. [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/zwan2ewdgrzwpoet [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GGPMjW_SPE [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AZ1edDdQvg -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Starting with the first bug
On 06/10/2014 Ankit Tekriwal wrote: No I don't know how to search the code using OpenGrok. Please tell the procedure. I see that OpenGrok is now back (it was offline for a few days earlier this week). So, coming back to the suggestions from Regina: 1) Make sure you are following https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=44244 (register if needed and add a comment saying you are going to fix this issue; and if possible use the "Take" command as described by Regina, or tell us that you don't see the "Take" command and we will modify your permissions). 2) As a first step, you will want that View - Toolbars in Draw contains "Circles and Ovals", as it happens in Impress. To check where this is defined, start by searching "Circles and Ovals" (with the quotes) in Opengrok http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/ after setting "Project" (right hand side) to "aoo-trunk": your results are http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/search?q=%22Circles+and+Ovals%22&defs=&refs=&path=&hist=&project=aoo-trunk and you will see (among other references) two very similar files, one for Draw and one for Impress. Start your investigation from there, and if you have any doubts post them here or in the issue. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
