Hello Tony Tony Wyatt wrote at 16.01.2005 23:38:26:

Hi guys,

Spent some hours yesterday reading the OOo hackers' site while downloading the Head from Olegil. Since the best speed I got was about 20k ch/sec and the average was more like 12-13 k ch/sec, I had plenty of time :-P

Anyway, it seems that, unlike Kaffe, there is no existing way to build OOo for a platform different from the build platform, ie to cross-compile. I suggest that this ability is very important to us (and to anyone else trying a port to a new platform). Perhaps adding that functionality to the makefiles would be of benefit, not only to us, but to all personkind.

[...]

I sort of expected to see the same series of steps with OOo, but it looks as though it has never been contemplated or implemented. Should we consider implementing a similar approach for OOo?

Well from what I've seen so far during the build is that there are many packages "bundled" with oo, i.e. freetype, curl (incl. automated patch against 7.12.4 or something) and many others. I also learned that the sourcetree is used on all platforms, only the makefiles differ. IMO we should more focus on getting this thing build directly with the original codebase, adding AmigaOS specific code to the appropiate directories and adapt the makefiles accordingly, this allows us to be in "sync" with the oo codebase. This is really a lot of work, but everything else is IMO useless to try during the huge amount of packages and code involved. Opinions? Regards, -- ___________________________ _____ ______________________________ __\ \\___// /__/_ \ Name: Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz - Programmer/Oracle DBA / \ E-Mail: siegel@in-ovation.de - ICQ: 9691810 / \ HTTP: http://www.saschapfalz.de / / Formula One Fans visit http://www.f1-timer.de \ /________________________________________________________________\.vK

Hi Ole-Egil, On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

Had I noticed you WERE downloading (you didn't show up in the uplink usage at all, what with your puny downlink and all :-P ) I woulda waited :-)

LOL. My bandwidth was probably in the noise, anyway. Now, how about giving us Linux-ignorants a brief rundown on the variations in Shells, and why they seem to have different functionality? Is there any one that has ALL the functionality of the others? cheers

Tony Wyatt wrote:

Hi Ole-Egil,

On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

...

Had I noticed you WERE downloading (you didn't show up in the uplink usage at all, what with your puny downlink and all :-P ) I woulda waited :-)

LOL. My bandwidth was probably in the noise, anyway.

Now, how about giving us Linux-ignorants a brief rundown on the variations in Shells, and why they seem to have different functionality? Is there any one that has ALL the functionality of the others?

They're all slightly different ways to accomplish (mostly) the same thing. In the *nix world, shells are significantly more evolved than the Windows CLI for example, and can be used for sem-trivial to not so trivial programming (think along the lines of ARexx but syntactically different). The problem is each shell features it's own idiosycracies, and some differing syntax for control structures and tests (for/while loops, if, case etc), as well as different 'builtins'- a shell builtin is most analogous to a C function that is always available (ie, not implemented via an external library). csh specifically has gotten a lot of flak in the past as it has some issues with file descriptor redirection for stdin (normally keyboard), stdout and stderr handling, or lack thereof, as well as some other issues which may or may not have been corrected in the various different versions available nowadays. Unfortunately, where there are many options available, what generally is done is you write shell scripts to the lowest common denominator- while not all *nix systems have csh, or ksh, available, they all have an implementation of 'sh' (Bourne shell) available....which is what most 'sane' non platform specific shell scripts are written to. The next most common is becoming 'bash' (Bourne Again SHell), which has become popular being the standard Linux shell...but also offering fully compliant (well, mostly) sh functionality as well. Anwyays...I was hoping that there wasn't a 'real' (meaning actually using csh specific functionality) requirement for csh, but it seems we've got a few csh variants available, so will presumably use one of them, ignoring the fact that 'csh is just wrong' ;-) (poor choice from Sun/StarOffice that I'm sure has just been left alone...Sun can write some _large_ shell scripts!) If we wind up needing to create any AOS specific shell scripts, I'd suggest we at least try to write those using sh compliance rather than csh specific... Scott

cheers

_______________________________________________ Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4

Hi Thomas, On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

Regarding the native building process: We will be giving out the ixemul-enabled kernel after it passed beta testing.

I shall try it with Kaffe, when it is released for testing. That ought to be a good test ;-) cheers

Hi Scott, On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

You can compile OOo without Mozilla connectivity by make -DWITHOUT_MOZILLA

Is that the same or different from the "--disable-mozilla" option from this page? http://tools.openoffice.org/build_env_conf.html It does not actually describe what happens if you "disable" it. Maybe you just need a different Mozilla? cheers

Hi Scott, On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

Good link to that page though. At initial glance, their statement about --deisable-mozilla is semi-scary- "OO usually provides some form of hacked up mozilla"

We must take it with a grain of salt, however. The project is continually changing, and some web pages may not be entirely up to date. cheers

Hello Scott Scott W wrote at 17.01.2005 02:11:45:

BTW, for anyone not following along at home, or if anyone knows the definitive answer to the ? below:

Partial start of an OOo2 build under FreeBSD:

If you set WITH_DEBUG=2, you add internal OOo debug support.

You can compile OOo without Mozilla connectivity by make -DWITHOUT_MOZILLA

[snip RE: apple patents]

You can compile OOo without Java support by make -DWITHOUT_JAVA

END build snippet

I'm assuming at this point that 'without Java' precludes their DB and the crash reporter tool. Is there anything else affected for OOo2 by the lack of java?

Likewise, it might be worth checking what the 'without Mozilla' option winds up doing.

Note this is from a FreeBSD ports build script, which is essentially a wrapper over the standard autoconf/configure options. I can dig into this a bit after/if it ever completes and take a look at some of the alternative paths, but was wondering if someone else might have already done so?

Well I will give them a try, as the 680 Release won't compile completly I can check out such things. There is a double redeclaration in the resmgr.c++ file found in the tools directory. Already tried to update the CVS tree but with no luck. Will try to fix that problem l8er this day and also trying to add these configure flags. There are several other to set, mainly to replace the build-packages with system-installed versions like curl i.e. Regards, -- ___________________________ _____ ______________________________ __\ \\___// /__/_ \ Name: Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz - Programmer/Oracle DBA / \ E-Mail: siegel@in-ovation.de - ICQ: 9691810 / \ HTTP: http://www.saschapfalz.de / / Formula One Fans visit http://www.f1-timer.de \ /________________________________________________________________\.vK

Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz wrote:

I've tried them under bash with no luck. The build process requires to source a file (LinuxEnvSet) before starting the build, and the supplied *.sh version won't work under bash.

This is correct. The top script runs in bash, but the files sourced use csh syntax so won't work in a POSIX shell. Ole-Egil -- We'll double-cross that bridge when we get there.