Hi!
After fiddling around with the sources I finally get the build process working. So far my Linux Box seems to have everything required installed except of some additional tools, which have to be downloaded and installed manually as SuSE at least does not provide them.
I have written a small textfile where the build process and the required pre-workings are described, and another textfile which shows the initial configure run, so we can see what exactly is required to build.
I found it very annoying that the build process actually does only work when using TCSH, the bash is not supported and does not work. This took me 2 hours to figure out :(
Anyway the Build is now running, I'm expecting at least 12-18 Hours of compile time until everything is done.
I eventually will install distccd which allows to add several machines to compile all together on one project, this may speed up things a lot (for interested ppl see http://distcc.samba.org).
More info on that when the build is completed.
Regards,
Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz wrote:
Hi!
After fiddling around with the sources I finally get the build process working. So far my Linux Box seems to have everything required installed except of some additional tools, which have to be downloaded and installed manually as SuSE at least does not provide them.
I have written a small textfile where the build process and the required pre-workings are described, and another textfile which shows the initial configure run, so we can see what exactly is required to build.
I found it very annoying that the build process actually does only work when using TCSH, the bash is not supported and does not work. This took me 2 hours to figure out :(
Anyway the Build is now running, I'm expecting at least 12-18 Hours of compile time until everything is done.
I eventually will install distccd which allows to add several machines to compile all together on one project, this may speed up things a lot (for interested ppl see http://distcc.samba.org).
More info on that when the build is completed.
Thanks for the information... am still downloading...
Looking good so far (have printed the documents, so I am going to read it totally later).
Regards,
[...]
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.
[If you don't know how Kaffe builds] Kaffe runs a configure script that performs a number of test edits/compiles and makes up a list of "what is on this system and what isn't" (headers, utilities, all the dependencies that we have been talking about). With this list in the file "config.h", the build can proceed with some confidence that it will work. To make a cross-compile, you have to edit your own version of "config.h", then perform a build bypassing the configure step. The build script takes arguments like "--target=68k-amigaos" and adjusts path syntax, JIT code files, etc, according to the hardware and OS. Hopefully the result will work when you take it to the target machine.
With this process, Kaffe has been ported to many different platforms, some of them embedded applications. [End of tutorial]
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?
cheers
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,
Tony Wyatt wrote:
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
I've been using bittorrent to grab some hard to find TV episodes this weekend, I must have served something like 30GB in total the last 72 hours. :-o
Oh, and I had to forcibly kill the webserver a couple of times to get rid of a hanging SVN thread. That might be why you had to resume :-(
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 :-)
Sorry.
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?
cross-reference with list of commands of some of the different shells - http://www.allcommands.com/samples/ICR.pdf some writing about the different shells - http://wks.uts.ohio-state.edu/unix_course/intro-55.html More detailed writing about the different shells - http://docs.rinet.ru:8080/UNIXs/ch13.htm
cheers
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
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,
Tony Wyatt wrote:
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.
Regarding the native building process: We will be giving out the ixemul-enabled kernel after it passed beta testing.
Regards,
Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz wrote:
Hi!
After fiddling around with the sources I finally get the build process working. So far my Linux Box seems to have everything required installed except of some additional tools, which have to be downloaded and installed manually as SuSE at least does not provide them.
I have written a small textfile where the build process and the required pre-workings are described, and another textfile which shows the initial configure run, so we can see what exactly is required to build.
I found it very annoying that the build process actually does only work when using TCSH, the bash is not supported and does not work. This took me 2 hours to figure out :(
I'm currently pulling down OO2-devel from BSD Ports, to take a look at this. I expect this to take some time to get it to build, but I'd _really_ like to see what's going on with the tcsh/csh specifics and their build scripts, unless someone else has already confirmed that symlinking bash or sh to csh won't actually build it?
I'll post the updated build time as well, although it's not too relevant- it's 'gonna take some time' :-)
Scott
Anyway the Build is now running, I'm expecting at least 12-18 Hours of compile time until everything is done.
I eventually will install distccd which allows to add several machines to compile all together on one project, this may speed up things a lot (for interested ppl see http://distcc.samba.org).
More info on that when the build is completed.
Regards,
[snipped build output]
Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz wrote:
Hi!
After fiddling around with the sources I finally get the build process working. So far my Linux Box seems to have everything required installed except of some additional tools, which have to be downloaded and installed manually as SuSE at least does not provide them.
I have written a small textfile where the build process and the required pre-workings are described, and another textfile which shows the initial configure run, so we can see what exactly is required to build.
I found it very annoying that the build process actually does only work when using TCSH, the bash is not supported and does not work. This took me 2 hours to figure out :(
Has anyone symlinked sh or bash to tcsh, or looked at the scripts called by the Makefiles, to determine if they really are using [t]csh specific functionality?
Scott
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?
Scott
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
Tony Wyatt wrote:
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
*BSD ports wrappers generally map 1:1 with their autoconfi/configure options, so it should have the same effect.
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"
--with-use-shell may be worth looking at in the configure/build scripts
It doesn't look like they've fully documented their configure flags there, but I'm wondering in glancing at their options they do document if the 'full' OOo source actually integrates all of their dependencies within their own source tree as 'fallbacks' for each dependency? ( I can't verify currently, still pulling source down in prep for build...)
Scott
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
Scott W wrote:
It doesn't look like they've fully documented their configure flags there, but I'm wondering in glancing at their options they do document if the 'full' OOo source actually integrates all of their dependencies within their own source tree as 'fallbacks' for each dependency? ( I can't verify currently, still pulling source down in prep for build...)
If the tarballs within the CVS are fallbacks, that would explain why they have ASpell 0.33.something in there. I hope so, cause 0.50+ would be infinetely more useful to other applications if ported.
Ole-Egil
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,
Hello Scott
Scott W wrote at 17.01.2005 01:08:18:
Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz wrote:
Hi!
After fiddling around with the sources I finally get the build process working. So far my Linux Box seems to have everything required installed except of some additional tools, which have to be downloaded and installed manually as SuSE at least does not provide them.
I have written a small textfile where the build process and the required pre-workings are described, and another textfile which shows the initial configure run, so we can see what exactly is required to build.
I found it very annoying that the build process actually does only work when using TCSH, the bash is not supported and does not work. This took me 2 hours to figure out :(
Has anyone symlinked sh or bash to tcsh, or looked at the scripts called by the Makefiles, to determine if they really are using [t]csh specific functionality?
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.
Regards,
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
Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz wrote:
I found it very annoying that the build process actually does only work when using TCSH, the bash is not supported and does not work. This took me 2 hours to figure out :(
One would think a whole week of Olegil harping on about CSH being needed to build OO.org would have an effect, but NOOOO :-P
Ole-Egil
-
Henning Nielsen Lund -
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren -
Sascha 'SieGeL' Pfalz -
Scott W -
Thomas Frieden -
Tony Wyatt