Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Developing U++ » Releasing U++ » Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1
Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1 [message #8461] Mon, 12 March 2007 12:04 Go to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
Ok, this forum is to coordinate release efforts, which seem to lag a little lately.

Our current goal - 2007.1. We are at rc3, which is seems to be fairly good, but not perfect.

First of all, there are only mingw and src version. Where is rest?

src is missing fixed Makefile.

I guess we have bad metology for major releases.

I think the *major* release should start with Bas releasing src version (+ linux packages), because Bas can fix the Makefile. Daniel then should download this "src" and prepare Win32 releases based on it to keep consistency.

Other maintainers could add theirs versions later.

In the same time, I do not think it is necessary to do this for "dev" releases - there using different slightly different version of sources is OK with me. In fact, I think all that is needed for dev release is mingw / src produced by Daniel + possible ports to Linux and others only for testing purposes.

Comments?

Mirek
Re: Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1 [message #8463 is a reply to message #8461] Mon, 12 March 2007 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ebojd is currently offline  ebojd
Messages: 225
Registered: January 2007
Location: USA
Experienced Member
I'll volunteer to coordinate with Bas to test and update the Linux Makefile updates. I'll also make a point of cleaning up the Gentoo portage ebuild to be released at the same time.

EBo --
Re: Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1 [message #8464 is a reply to message #8461] Mon, 12 March 2007 15:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
unodgs is currently offline  unodgs
Messages: 1354
Registered: November 2005
Location: Poland
Senior Contributor

Quote:


I guess we have bad metology for major releases.

I think the *major* release should start with Bas releasing src version (+ linux packages), because Bas can fix the Makefile. Daniel then should download this "src" and prepare Win32 releases based on it to keep consistency.
Other maintainers could add theirs versions later.



Well, win32 release is our MAIN release. That's why I'm preparing src file for Bas. Consistency is kept - but in opposite way. We could change it but 1) I don't see a good reason now (what that would change?) 2) Bas and I have our own tools to make packages optimized for proper input - uvs in my tool and zip file in Bas. Changing this would require time and tests.

In my opinion all maintainters should get sources directly from uvs. "Final" release should be tagged and all mainainers should sync those tagged sources. I only don't know if that is possible in current uvs. If not adding it is worth considering.
Re: Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1 [message #8465 is a reply to message #8463] Mon, 12 March 2007 15:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
ebojd wrote on Mon, 12 March 2007 10:12

I'll volunteer to coordinate with Bas to test and update the Linux Makefile updates. I'll also make a point of cleaning up the Gentoo portage ebuild to be released at the same time.

EBo --



Welcome!

However, I think for 2007.1, all we have to resolve now is organization of release. Bas AFAIK has Makefile running. I do not want to do any further improvements now, just make it released. I am afraid we are far from "perfect" state anyway, all we need now is to make each major release better than previous and not to make stupid bugs...

I really want to do some development again Smile

Anyway, past 2007.1 release, I hope you and other people will take that release and contribute (and upload) all platform specific improvements to sf.net download page.

Mirek
Re: Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1 [message #8486 is a reply to message #8464] Tue, 13 March 2007 15:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
unodgs wrote on Mon, 12 March 2007 10:19


Well, win32 release is our MAIN release. That's why I'm preparing src file for Bas. Consistency is kept - but in opposite way. We could change it but 1) I don't see a good reason now (what that would change?)



Let see what happened to all of our rc-s - win32 release was always fine, but there was a problem in Linux. That is why I think releasing Linux version first is such a good idea.

Quote:


"Final" release should be tagged and all mainainers should sync those tagged sources.



Yes, but rc is that final release. Actually, I agree with you, the simple way is to get sources from uvs. There are no tags, but I think there is not that much uploaders to avoid problems.

OTOH, it sort of reminds me another issue - after finaly releasing, we might need to maintain 2007.1 for a while, fixing critical bugs...

Mirek

Linux Makefile(s) [message #8589 is a reply to message #8486] Tue, 20 March 2007 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ebojd is currently offline  ebojd
Messages: 225
Registered: January 2007
Location: USA
Experienced Member
How long till we expect to see the official 2007.1 release?

Is there someone I should coordinate with to vet the Linux Makefile(s), and make sure that everything is safe and sane?

EBo --
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8592 is a reply to message #8589] Tue, 20 March 2007 14:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
ebojd wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 09:08

How long till we expect to see the official 2007.1 release?

Is there someone I should coordinate with to vet the Linux Makefile(s), and make sure that everything is safe and sane?

EBo --



The key person is Bas. The key problem is Linux release.

Mirek
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8595 is a reply to message #8592] Tue, 20 March 2007 15:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
guido is currently offline  guido
Messages: 169
Registered: April 2006
Experienced Member
luzr wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 14:44


The key person is Bas. The key problem is Linux release.


So, what are the remaining issues exactly?

Guido
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8623 is a reply to message #8595] Wed, 21 March 2007 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
guido wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 10:44

luzr wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 14:44


The key person is Bas. The key problem is Linux release.


So, what are the remaining issues exactly?

Guido



Stupid details... (lower/upper case issues in filenames, the correct selection of uppsrc packages etc...).

But it is coming (finally).

Mirek
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8630 is a reply to message #8623] Thu, 22 March 2007 00:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
guido is currently offline  guido
Messages: 169
Registered: April 2006
Experienced Member
luzr wrote on Wed, 21 March 2007 20:31

guido wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 10:44

luzr wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 14:44


The key person is Bas. The key problem is Linux release.


So, what are the remaining issues exactly?

Guido



Stupid details... (lower/upper case issues in filenames, the correct selection of uppsrc packages etc...).

But it is coming (finally).

Mirek


I just discovered an X11 RichEdit paste bug.
In UWord I can't paste in the RichEdit ctrl within a UWord instance, be it within a document or to another document. But to another UWord instance it works. Only RichEdit to RichEdit exhibits this behaviour, EditString and LineEdit are OK, also RichEdit to EditString etc.
Topic++ has this problem in the exact same way, so there really is a bug in RichEdit clipboard management.

Guido
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8635 is a reply to message #8630] Thu, 22 March 2007 09:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fallingdutch is currently offline  fallingdutch
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2006
Experienced Member
Hi all,

i am very sorry for the long absence but i had to do some stuff i get money for Wink

I am happy to have - finally - time for upp again.

the current state of the linux release is:
- the case issues are fixed
- theide is build before creating the package
- every reference/example/tutorial is build with the new "theide" before creating the packages
- the uppsrc includes should be correct now.

At the moment i just built the current theide and a check of the examples/referenec/tutorials is running. The next step will be creation of the packages.

Bas
In the future i would love to generate Makefile.am's with upp so the source package is more portable.


Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8639 is a reply to message #8635] Thu, 22 March 2007 12:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 890
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
fallingdutch wrote on Thu, 22 March 2007 04:34


In the future i would love to generate Makefile.am's with upp so the source package is more portable.



I can help with that Wink
I already have everything set up. Just need to run a script ...
I'm generating project files for Visual Studio the same way. Cool


Regards,
Novo
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8647 is a reply to message #8639] Thu, 22 March 2007 14:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ebojd is currently offline  ebojd
Messages: 225
Registered: January 2007
Location: USA
Experienced Member
Novo,

Can you post your scripts? I would like to take a look at them.

EBo --
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8648 is a reply to message #8647] Thu, 22 March 2007 15:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fallingdutch is currently offline  fallingdutch
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2006
Experienced Member
ebojd wrote on Thu, 22 March 2007 14:12

Novo,

Can you post your scripts? I would like to take a look at them.

EBo --


Me, too
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8663 is a reply to message #8648] Thu, 22 March 2007 23:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 890
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
fallingdutch wrote on Thu, 22 March 2007 10:02

ebojd wrote on Thu, 22 March 2007 14:12

Novo,

Can you post your scripts? I would like to take a look at them.

EBo --


Me, too


I'm using "The Makefile, Project, and Workspace Creator (MPC)" from http://www.ociweb.com/products/mpc.

I've prepared a bunch of project files for MPC. If you want to learn another technology I can post these mpc files.

Actually, they are quite similar to upp files Wink


Regards,
Novo
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8664 is a reply to message #8663] Thu, 22 March 2007 23:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 890
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
Here they are ...

A command line I'm using to generate vc71 project files:

perl D:\bin\MPC\3.4.90\mwc.pl -nocomments -type vc71 -name_modifier *_vc71 -include mpc/config -relative UPP_ROOT=2007.1rc3 2007.1rc3/upp_ws.mwc

The icpp-problem is still not solved.


Regards,
Novo
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8669 is a reply to message #8630] Fri, 23 March 2007 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
guido wrote on Wed, 21 March 2007 19:54

luzr wrote on Wed, 21 March 2007 20:31

guido wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 10:44

luzr wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 14:44


The key person is Bas. The key problem is Linux release.


So, what are the remaining issues exactly?

Guido



Stupid details... (lower/upper case issues in filenames, the correct selection of uppsrc packages etc...).

But it is coming (finally).

Mirek


I just discovered an X11 RichEdit paste bug.
In UWord I can't paste in the RichEdit ctrl within a UWord instance, be it within a document or to another document. But to another UWord instance it works. Only RichEdit to RichEdit exhibits this behaviour, EditString and LineEdit are OK, also RichEdit to EditString etc.
Topic++ has this problem in the exact same way, so there really is a bug in RichEdit clipboard management.

Guido


Fixed.
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8674 is a reply to message #8664] Fri, 23 March 2007 16:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ebojd is currently offline  ebojd
Messages: 225
Registered: January 2007
Location: USA
Experienced Member
I took a quick look last night at MPC. My concern with taking adopting this tools is that it looks like there could be license compatibility problems. It does look like a nice exterior package solution though...

If we were going to adopt the use of another tool for this purpose I would recommend also looking at Jam (a cross-platform make replacement) which has an attribute alike as-is license IIRC.

see:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/index.html
http://www.perforce.com/jam/jam.html

Just a thought...

So, is this seriously open for discussion, or just exploring? The likely easiest solution is to add scripting to the package organizer, and then it is just replacing the X11, etc., library directives with pkg-config...

EBo --
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8678 is a reply to message #8674] Sat, 24 March 2007 00:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 890
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
ebojd wrote on Fri, 23 March 2007 11:41

I took a quick look last night at MPC. My concern with taking adopting this tools is that it looks like there could be license compatibility problems. It does look like a nice exterior package solution though...



From the MPC's License:

"Since MPC is open source and free of licensing fees, you are free to use, modify, and distribute the source code, as long as you include this copyright statement.

In particular, you can use MPC to build proprietary software and are under no obligation to redistribute any of your source code that is built using MPC."

So, no visible restrictions except of a copyright. And you are free to distribute generated files ...

Quote:


If we were going to adopt the use of another tool for this purpose I would recommend also looking at Jam (a cross-platform make replacement) which has an attribute alike as-is license IIRC.

see:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/index.html
http://www.perforce.com/jam/jam.html

Just a thought...



There is a big difference between MPC and jam/bjam. jam is a build system like make. It doesn't generate project files of any kind. It builds everything itself. In opposite, MPC doesn't build anything itself. It generates make/project files. Basically, it is a template engine. Main advantage of MPC over other template engines is that it has quite simple and efficient language to describe everything related to organizing of software packages. I wouldn't say MPC is perfect, but it is usable. And it saves a lot of time. Smile

Quote:


So, is this seriously open for discussion, or just exploring? The likely easiest solution is to add scripting to the package organizer, and then it is just replacing the X11, etc., library directives with pkg-config...

EBo --



I've been asked to post a script. Wink

I needed project files for Visual Studio because of a debugger. So, I've made them and shared with others. Smile




Regards,
Novo
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8687 is a reply to message #8678] Sat, 24 March 2007 17:05 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
OK, sum of issues unresolved at the moment for the release:

* "Glossy theme bug in Ubuntu", Daniel, do you experience it after recompiling? (I do not Wink

* "Popup problem in Gentoo/KDE", ebojd, what is the status?

Mirek
Previous Topic: GCC.bm problems
Next Topic: OK, time to release.... (finally).
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Nov 14 19:57:14 CET 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01597 seconds