On 02/09/2016 03:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 2:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> ...
>> == HELP, TOO MANY MAKEFILES ==
>>
>> I started looking at what's been done so far. And, due to the fact
>> that dmake also uses makefiles, what's the correct way to invoke GNU
>> make for a build? I
On 2/9/2016 2:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
...
== HELP, TOO MANY MAKEFILES ==
I started looking at what's been done so far. And, due to the fact
that dmake also uses makefiles, what's the correct way to invoke GNU
make for a build? It looks like the "main" makefile for what's been
migrated so far is
[getting back to this old thread for a moment. See below]
On 09/23/2015 11:01 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build e
On 25/09/2015 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I think it may be desireable to upgrade coinmp in AOO410 and with that
we would solve the issues for people(/buildbots) doing complete builds.
I see you have just committed this to AOO410, but remember: we are not
freely committing to AOO410 at the moment (ev
Hello;
On 09/25/15 12:35, Don Lewis wrote:
Using the FreeBSD ports framework, I am able to successfully build
AOO410 branch revision r1705179 on FreeBSD 9.3, 10.1, and 11.0-CURRENT,
on both i386 and amd64. The only required patch is a tweak to the
optimization flags to avoid a bug in clang 3.6
Using the FreeBSD ports framework, I am able to successfully build
AOO410 branch revision r1705179 on FreeBSD 9.3, 10.1, and 11.0-CURRENT,
on both i386 and amd64. The only required patch is a tweak to the
optimization flags to avoid a bug in clang 3.6 on i386. I use exactly
the same patch when bu
Kay Schenk wrote:
@Andrea. We already have buildbots for the 410 branch as the
SNAPSHOT tag. But this tag needs to be updated to something
more current with our recent merges.
Sure, but we are now (say, in the last 24 hours and in the next 24
hours) merging a lot of pending items and I'd rathe
On 09/24/2015 04:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 24/09/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting
>> specific
>> patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and
>> then tagging
>> that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect th
OK this is my list:
r1591501, r1602791, r1669457, r1669459, r1669465, r1694132
It only touches FreeBSD related build issues:
M main
M main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
M main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/except.cxx
M main/bridges/sour
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
People shouldn't volunteer other people unless tey are also giving them
the means to contribute ... I think.
Status of that item (buildbots) is "Done". Don's name is there for
recognition of the already done work.
Using the buildbots for the release (even not considering
On 09/24/15 11:56, Don Lewis wrote:
On 24 Sep, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi Andrea;
It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.
I don't real
On 24 Sep, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Andrea;
>
> It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
> trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
> for over a year won't be included into the next release.
>
> I don't really want to spend time mergi
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.
Yes, this is actually quite normal (well, let's say "usual"!): I mean,
4
Hi Andrea;
It did catch me somewhat off-guard that the release is not branched from
trunk. It basically means that some changes that have been in the tree
for over a year won't be included into the next release.
I don't really want to spend time merging changes to the 410 branch, but
I will be
Oh, I see ...
The branching is somewhat weird in OpenOffice.
Yes, then you can do the work in trunk. Try to use "svn merge" to bring
the changes from the gbuild branch.
Unfortunately I moved configure.in to configure.ac so those changes will
have to be done by hand, but it's probably not the on
On 24/09/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting specific
patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and then tagging
that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect the release
stability.
There will be less oversight on trunk at
Hi
We aren't branching trunk to release 4.1.2, we are porting specific
patches from trunk to the pre-existing AOO410 branch and then tagging
that as the release. The state of trunk doesn't affect the release
stability.
Damjan
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi again Dam
Hi again Damjan;
I was assuming that we are sort of preparing for a release and we don’t want
ugly surprises with the build system. On second thoughts we do have a bunch
of buildbots so we will detect any wrong-going within the build system.
Well, no one is currently using the build branch so I w
Am 09/23/2015 11:09 AM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
[...]we chosen a final build system yet?
The reason I ask is that I became quite familiar with gbuild in the
course of migrating our unit tests to Google Test, and have already
successfully migrated one dmake module (formula) to gbuild, so if
th
Am 09/23/2015 11:23 AM, schrieb jan i:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
Hi
I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
to gbuild which migrated some modules
(https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort), and a
more recent attempt
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Damjan and list;
>
> Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the
> gbuild branch.
>
> The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs
> updating. I realize the request may seem inco
Am 09/23/2015 05:26 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
Hi
I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
to gbuild which migrated some modules
(https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort), and a
more recent at
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
>> to gbuild which migrated some modules
>> (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort)
Hi Damjan and list;
Working on gbuild would certainly be welcome, however please do so on the
gbuild branch.
The branch is really old, I recall it was broken for FreeBSD, so it needs
updating. I realize the request may seem inconvenient but the gbuild branch
contains the last OpenOffice.org co
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
>
> I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
> to gbuild which migrated some modules
> (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort), and a
> more recent attempt, Capstone 2013, to get AOO to
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
to gbuild which migrated some modules
(https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort), and a
more recent attempt, Capstone 2013, to get AOO to build in Visual
Studio.
Yes and we have branch
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
>
> I see there was a historical attempt to upgrade the build environment
> to gbuild which migrated some modules
> (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort), and a
> more recent attempt, Capstone 2013, to get AOO to
27 matches
Mail list logo
