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++ » Releases....
Releases.... [message #16108] Wed, 28 May 2008 10:41 Go to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12105
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
I am now thinking a lot about U++ future and that involves a release infrastructure.

I think it is about time to create a list of all possible "U++ outputs" and current maintainers.

- source release; should contain makefile, maintainer: AFAIK missing

- win32 (with and without mingw): unodgs, tojocky

- ubuntu64 - mdelfede

- ubuntu32 - bytefield

- freebsd - masu

- Visual C++ - novo

Now some more outputs that I think we should do:

- .rpm

- win64 (maybe)

- NTL (as separate library)

- U++ allocator (beacause it is now the best in the world Smile

Anything or anybody missing?

As for future infrastructure plans, I plan to deploy "U++ server" to automate the release process, most likely with Ubuntu64 as base system, with ssh access for all maintainers. It should do nightly builds, nightly unit testing and perhaps even nightly benchmarking.

I think we should be able to use wine to compile win32 outputs... Or alternatively, virtualization.

Mirek

[Updated on: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:26]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Releases.... [message #16109 is a reply to message #16108] Wed, 28 May 2008 10:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
masu is currently offline  masu
Messages: 378
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
I can do the source release, if desired.

However, I have holidays beginning in week 25 lasting for 1 month, so a release date before would help Wink.

Matthias
Re: Releases.... [message #16119 is a reply to message #16108] Wed, 28 May 2008 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
guido is currently offline  guido
Messages: 169
Registered: April 2006
Experienced Member
I might do OpenSolaris.
But no promise and not before Q3.

Incidentally, any Mac development happening?
At least the X11.app port still functional?

Guido
Re: Releases.... [message #16121 is a reply to message #16119] Wed, 28 May 2008 20:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12105
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
guido wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 14:23

I might do OpenSolaris.
But no promise and not before Q3.

Incidentally, any Mac development happening?
At least the X11.app port still functional?

Guido


OK, so we should add

- OpenSolaris

- MacOS X11

Mac development and other feature enhancements are another topic....

Mirek
Re: Releases.... [message #16122 is a reply to message #16119] Wed, 28 May 2008 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
I could do some rpms. I have some linuxes on a vbox, so starting it up and running a script to generate the rpm wouldn't be any problem about 2 times a month.

The problem with rpms is that they are not very portable between distros, so we have to pick some popular distros like Suse and Fedora and stick with the last stable version.
Re: Releases.... [message #16127 is a reply to message #16122] Wed, 28 May 2008 20:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12105
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 14:31

I could do some rpms. I have some linuxes on a vbox, so starting it up and running a script to generate the rpm wouldn't be any problem about 2 times a month.



Excellent, thanks.

Anyway, it turns out that we will have sort of "main" releases, done perhaps as automated nightly builds (and maintainer's job will be mostly to maintain release scripts), and "secondary" releases like MacOSX, FreeBSD, Solaris etc...

Mirek
Re: Releases.... [message #16130 is a reply to message #16127] Wed, 28 May 2008 20:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
And I was thinking about a way to offer a portable way of installing and compiling U++ on unsupported distros. AFAIK, a binary (ELF) without any shared libs referenced can be run out of the box on most linux distros, and even on FreeBSD, through their binary parallelization system (I could be wrong about the BSD part, but I remember reading that it had some emulation mechanism for such tasks). If we could package a completely self-contained UMK version together with some autodetect mechanism for gcc and needed header files or libs, I think we could make the task of installing on a fresh distro which does not have a binary distribution a lot easier, especially for people who don't have Linux bash experience or just hate bash based make scripts and makefiles like I do Smile. Installation package would be sources plus build tool.
Re: Releases.... [message #16139 is a reply to message #16130] Wed, 28 May 2008 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12105
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
[quote title=cbpporter wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 14:58AFAIK, a binary (ELF) without any shared libs referenced can be run out of the box on most linux distros, and even on FreeBSD, through their binary parallelization system (I could be wrong about the BSD part, but I remember reading that it had some emulation mechanism for such tasks). If we could package a completely self-contained UMK version together with some autodetect mechanism for gcc and needed header files or libs, I think we could make the task of installing on a fresh distro which does not have a binary distribution a lot easier, especially for people who don't have Linux bash experience or just hate bash based make scripts and makefiles like I do Smile. [/quote]

Well, that would require "separating" umk from GUI. OTOH, that is something I wanted to do anyway.

Strangely, it seems we have some overlapping jobs now Smile Separating SlaveProcess from Web, Console from ide and umk from GUI Smile

Mirek
Re: Releases.... [message #16144 is a reply to message #16108] Thu, 29 May 2008 04:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 890
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
luzr wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 04:41


- Visual C++ - novo



OK. I just need an SVN revision number. I can also generate C++Builder project files. Nobody complained they aren't working.


Regards,
Novo
Re: Releases.... [message #16148 is a reply to message #16130] Thu, 29 May 2008 12:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
masu is currently offline  masu
Messages: 378
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 20:58

And I was thinking about a way to offer a portable way of installing and compiling U++ on unsupported distros. AFAIK, a binary (ELF) without any shared libs referenced can be run out of the box on most linux distros, and even on FreeBSD, through their binary parallelization system (I could be wrong about the BSD part, but I remember reading that it had some emulation mechanism for such tasks). If we could package a completely self-contained UMK version together with some autodetect mechanism for gcc and needed header files or libs, I think we could make the task of installing on a fresh distro which does not have a binary distribution a lot easier, especially for people who don't have Linux bash experience or just hate bash based make scripts and makefiles like I do Smile. Installation package would be sources plus build tool.

You will need a linux emulation layer on BSDs which is no problem since I think all of them include a port for that. But you have the additional dependency on that layer.

Matthias
Re: Releases.... [message #16247 is a reply to message #16148] Tue, 03 June 2008 21:04 Go to previous message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
edit: Posted in wrong forum

[Updated on: Tue, 03 June 2008 21:28]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Small note...
Next Topic: RELEASE!
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Nov 21 01:46:15 CET 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01811 seconds