AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Jim Jagielski
Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
this:

    error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'

but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:

/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++ -arch x86_64 -std=c++11 -arch x86_64 -o out/der_getint_unittest.o -c -O2 -fPIC  -fno-common -pipe -DDARWIN -DHAVE_STRERROR -DHAVE_BSD_FLOCK  -Wall -Qunused-arguments -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-array-bounds -Wno-unevaluated-expression -Werror -Wsign-compare -DXP_UNIX -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -DNSS_NO_INIT_SUPPORT -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY -DNO_NSPR_10_SUPPORT -DSSL_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_CIPHER_SUITE_NAMES -I../../external_tests/google_test/gtest/include -I../../external_tests/common -I../../../dist/out/include -I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/private/nss -I../../../dist/public/nspr -I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/public/libdbm -I../../../dist/public/gtest  -std=c++0x der_getint_unittest.cc
In file included from der_getint_unittest.cc:14:
../../external_tests/common/scoped_ptrs.h:36:1: error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
SCOPED(CERTCertificate);



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Peter Kovacs-3
Boost has name collision with c++11.
Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think.

Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>:

>Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
>this:
>
>    error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>
>but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:
>
>/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++
>-arch x86_64 -std=c++11 -arch x86_64 -o out/der_getint_unittest.o -c
>-O2 -fPIC  -fno-common -pipe -DDARWIN -DHAVE_STRERROR -DHAVE_BSD_FLOCK
>-Wall -Qunused-arguments -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-array-bounds
>-Wno-unevaluated-expression -Werror -Wsign-compare -DXP_UNIX -UDEBUG
>-DNDEBUG -DNSS_NO_INIT_SUPPORT -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY -DNO_NSPR_10_SUPPORT
>-DSSL_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_CIPHER_SUITE_NAMES
>-I../../external_tests/google_test/gtest/include
>-I../../external_tests/common -I../../../dist/out/include
>-I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/private/nss
>-I../../../dist/public/nspr -I../../../dist/public/nss
>-I../../../dist/public/libdbm -I../../../dist/public/gtest  -std=c++0x
>der_getint_unittest.cc
>In file included from der_getint_unittest.cc:14:
>../../external_tests/common/scoped_ptrs.h:36:1: error: no type named
>'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>SCOPED(CERTCertificate);
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Jim Jagielski
I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead
of 10.7, which helps a lot.

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Boost has name collision with c++11.
> Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think.
>
> Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>:
>> Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
>> this:
>>
>>   error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>>
>> but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:
>>
>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++
>> -arch x86_64 -std=c++11 -arch x86_64 -o out/der_getint_unittest.o -c
>> -O2 -fPIC  -fno-common -pipe -DDARWIN -DHAVE_STRERROR -DHAVE_BSD_FLOCK
>> -Wall -Qunused-arguments -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-array-bounds
>> -Wno-unevaluated-expression -Werror -Wsign-compare -DXP_UNIX -UDEBUG
>> -DNDEBUG -DNSS_NO_INIT_SUPPORT -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY -DNO_NSPR_10_SUPPORT
>> -DSSL_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_CIPHER_SUITE_NAMES
>> -I../../external_tests/google_test/gtest/include
>> -I../../external_tests/common -I../../../dist/out/include
>> -I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/private/nss
>> -I../../../dist/public/nspr -I../../../dist/public/nss
>> -I../../../dist/public/libdbm -I../../../dist/public/gtest  -std=c++0x
>> der_getint_unittest.cc
>> In file included from der_getint_unittest.cc:14:
>> ../../external_tests/common/scoped_ptrs.h:36:1: error: no type named
>> 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>> SCOPED(CERTCertificate);
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Peter Kovacs-3
Oh cool!

Am 15. August 2017 15:45:05 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>:

>I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead
>of 10.7, which helps a lot.
>
>> On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Boost has name collision with c++11.
>> Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think.
>>
>> Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
><[hidden email]>:
>>> Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
>>> this:
>>>
>>>   error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>>>
>>> but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:
>>>
>>>
>/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++
>>> -arch x86_64 -std=c++11 -arch x86_64 -o out/der_getint_unittest.o -c
>>> -O2 -fPIC  -fno-common -pipe -DDARWIN -DHAVE_STRERROR
>-DHAVE_BSD_FLOCK
>>> -Wall -Qunused-arguments -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-array-bounds
>>> -Wno-unevaluated-expression -Werror -Wsign-compare -DXP_UNIX -UDEBUG
>>> -DNDEBUG -DNSS_NO_INIT_SUPPORT -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY
>-DNO_NSPR_10_SUPPORT
>>> -DSSL_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_CIPHER_SUITE_NAMES
>>> -I../../external_tests/google_test/gtest/include
>>> -I../../external_tests/common -I../../../dist/out/include
>>> -I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/private/nss
>>> -I../../../dist/public/nspr -I../../../dist/public/nss
>>> -I../../../dist/public/libdbm -I../../../dist/public/gtest
>-std=c++0x
>>> der_getint_unittest.cc
>>> In file included from der_getint_unittest.cc:14:
>>> ../../external_tests/common/scoped_ptrs.h:36:1: error: no type named
>>> 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>>> SCOPED(CERTCertificate);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Jim Jagielski
This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
required 10.9/Mavericks or greater. If not correct, could someone
let me know :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Andrea Pescetti-2
On 15/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
> required 10.9/Mavericks or greater.

Required based on what? On the current trunk code, on some architectural
limitations, on build environment? We are still receiving the occasional
mails of 10.6 users who can't run OpenOffice 4.1.x on their old Mac...

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Jim Jagielski
The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.

> On Aug 16, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 15/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
>> required 10.9/Mavericks or greater.
>
> Required based on what? On the current trunk code, on some architectural limitations, on build environment? We are still receiving the occasional mails of 10.6 users who can't run OpenOffice 4.1.x on their old Mac...
>
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Andrea Pescetti-2
On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.

Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean,
does building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9
won't be able to run the program?

A note: we'll have to make similar discussion for Linux too, as I said,
but I think it's more appropriate to focus on 4.1.4 for the time being.
Still, if we accompany 4.1.4 with a statement such as "This is the last
OpenOffice version that is expected to work on [list of outdated
operating systems]" it could be useful to users.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)

On 17.08.2017 12:51, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
>
> Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does building with the 10.9
> SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9 won't be able to run the program?
The latest updates of Xcode and its clang may give you warnings like: "lisbstdc++ is deprecated;
move to libc++ with a minimum deployment target of OS X 10.9 [-Wdeprecated]". "OS X 10.9" nick name
is "Maverick" and was released on 2013-02-22.

Setting the environment variable "MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.9" will usually make the build
unusable for earlier versions of MacOSX.

> A note: we'll have to make similar discussion for Linux too, as I said, but I think it's more
> appropriate to focus on 4.1.4 for the time being. Still, if we accompany 4.1.4 with a statement
> such as "This is the last OpenOffice version that is expected to work on [list of outdated
> operating systems]" it could be useful to users.
---rony

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2

> On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
>
> Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9 won't be able to run the program?
>

It does...

Now I haven't tried building w/ the 10.7 SDK simply because due to the build
flags (-Werror -Wdeprecated) when we bump into issues the build stops.
So we could work around those build issue, but that seem wonky to me.
It just seems wrong to have a new build system and then immediately
start crippling it to work with old systems. Alternatively, as the
VCL Quicktime issue shows, as we start updating some of the
actual code, these issues will start cropping up even more.

At some point we need to drop support for old systems... I had
assumed that 4.2.0 was our start in trying to free ourselves
from some of that kruft.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

Marcus (OOo)
Am 17.08.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

>
>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
>>
>> Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9 won't be able to run the program?
>>
>
> It does...
>
> Now I haven't tried building w/ the 10.7 SDK simply because due to the build
> flags (-Werror -Wdeprecated) when we bump into issues the build stops.
> So we could work around those build issue, but that seem wonky to me.
> It just seems wrong to have a new build system and then immediately
> start crippling it to work with old systems. Alternatively, as the
> VCL Quicktime issue shows, as we start updating some of the
> actual code, these issues will start cropping up even more.
>
> At some point we need to drop support for old systems... I had
> assumed that 4.2.0 was our start in trying to free ourselves
> from some of that kruft.

sure, this was always the plan: To re-think what we really need
nowadays. E.g., no support for old *) systems.

*) What "old" and "system" means in detail for us needs of course tbd.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Jim Jagielski
I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
way straight to 4.5.0...

Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
we drop some older supported platforms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Andrea Pescetti-2
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
> way straight to 4.5.0...
> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
> bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
> we drop some older supported platforms.

We should focus on 4.1.4 until the release process is complete. And then
we should start a proper discussion (that I'll be very happy to
participate in, since my list of pending, realistic, proposals is
getting longer and longer!) about the next release.

Its outcome will define how big a scope 4.2.0 has. And at that point, we
can see whether it is more appropriate to number it 4.2.0, or 5.0, or
6.0, or 2018, or whatever. Until we don't know what goes into it, just
tossing a number is a futile exercise.

If we don't have consensus on many changes, 4.2.0 will still be OK. If
instead we have consensus on a significant number of changes, even
numbering it 4.5.0 might be restrictive. As in all sane communities,
this depends on discussion. I'm really looking forward to starting it
next week.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Jim Jagielski

> On Oct 9, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
>> way straight to 4.5.0...
>> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
>> bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
>> we drop some older supported platforms.
>
> We should focus on 4.1.4 until the release process is complete.

It's called striking while the iron is hot ;)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Dave Fisher
Hi -

It is worth letting the idea “percolate” while 4.1.4 release proceeds to completion.

I like Jm’s thought. Announcing plans while announcing a release and then executing on it would be the the best AOO marketing possible. We proceed with whoever helps methodically.

My 2cts.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
>>> way straight to 4.5.0...
>>> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
>>> bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
>>> we drop some older supported platforms.
>>
>> We should focus on 4.1.4 until the release process is complete.
>
> It's called striking while the iron is hot ;)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
4.2.0 the idea is we could reference it to Douglas Adams answer 42.
Which is kinda funny.
However I would like to postpone the discussion towards 20ties since I have .ore time then. Very unselfish of me I know. ;)

All the best
Peter

Am 10. Oktober 2017 01:00:36 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>:

>I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
>way straight to 4.5.0...
>
>Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
>bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
>we drop some older supported platforms.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2
Am 10.10.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
>> way straight to 4.5.0...
>> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
>> bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
>> we drop some older supported platforms.
>
> We should focus on 4.1.4 until the release process is complete. And then
> we should start a proper discussion (that I'll be very happy to
> participate in, since my list of pending, realistic, proposals is
> getting longer and longer!) about the next release.

strong +1

To be honest, we have enough to do to get our 4.1.x release out.
Therefore I doubt we should invest a single minute into the version
numbering for the next but one release as it is not yet relevant.

my 2 ct.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

Patricia Shanahan


On 10/10/2017 11:49 AM, Marcus wrote:

> Am 10.10.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the
>>> way straight to 4.5.0...
>>> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a
>>> bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if
>>> we drop some older supported platforms.
>>
>> We should focus on 4.1.4 until the release process is complete. And
>> then we should start a proper discussion (that I'll be very happy to
>> participate in, since my list of pending, realistic, proposals is
>> getting longer and longer!) about the next release.
>
> strong +1
>
> To be honest, we have enough to do to get our 4.1.x release out.
> Therefore I doubt we should invest a single minute into the version
> numbering for the next but one release as it is not yet relevant.
>
> my 2 ct.
>
> Marcus

+1

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]