Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Kay Schenk-2
I think we all know AOO can't stand frozen in time with respect to what
platforms, libraries etc it will work with in the future, maybe even the
very near future. This is not uncommon by any means and AOO has made
minimum OS requirement changes for some platforms on a regular basis. In
some cases, these changes were not known to the user community, especially,
until release time, and this has caused issues in the past.

Some development changes are in progress that seem to be different than our
stated "System Requirements" for the 4.1.x series:

https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html

Would it be beneficial to discuss system changes for the 4.2.x series? This
might be helpful to those who have traditionally been involved with AOO
either as a user, or developer.

And, if such changes could be agreed upon, I think it would be very
beneficial to document these in  a new "Proposed System Requirements for
4.2.x" page that could get widespread viewing by all.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Ring out the false, ring in the true."
 -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Peter Kovacs-3
Well the Java section seems to need updated. I think we are now at 1.7 or 1.8 right? Or do we still support 1.5 & 1.6? Don't think so. (And no body uses those versions I guess)

On Windows we agreed on continued support of Windows XP. However should we maybe add ReactOS as official support?
I am appreciating such a step.
Technically there is no difference for us.
And it is the only Argument to keep Windows XP support.
If anyone does not know, React OS is a open source rebuild of Windows XP. Currently they support only Windows XP binary format, but they told me that the successor format used since Windows Vista is almost ready.

The stats for Linus look fine since I think glib 2.5 is older then what we actually use.

I do not believe we have big changes on Sizing or memory consumption.

I would think that a different page is a good idea.

Am 24. März 2018 22:27:17 MEZ schrieb Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>:

>I think we all know AOO can't stand frozen in time with respect to what
>platforms, libraries etc it will work with in the future, maybe even
>the
>very near future. This is not uncommon by any means and AOO has made
>minimum OS requirement changes for some platforms on a regular basis.
>In
>some cases, these changes were not known to the user community,
>especially,
>until release time, and this has caused issues in the past.
>
>Some development changes are in progress that seem to be different than
>our
>stated "System Requirements" for the 4.1.x series:
>
>https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html
>
>Would it be beneficial to discuss system changes for the 4.2.x series?
>This
>might be helpful to those who have traditionally been involved with AOO
>either as a user, or developer.
>
>And, if such changes could be agreed upon, I think it would be very
>beneficial to document these in  a new "Proposed System Requirements
>for
>4.2.x" page that could get widespread viewing by all.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Marcus (OOo)
Am 25.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> Well the Java section seems to need updated. I think we are now at 1.7 or 1.8 right? Or do we still support 1.5 & 1.6? Don't think so. (And no body uses those versions I guess)
>
> On Windows we agreed on continued support of Windows XP. However should we maybe add ReactOS as official support?
> I am appreciating such a step.
> Technically there is no difference for us.

I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.

Instead we can say in a different form that OpenOffice can run on
reactOS, like:

"possible alternative to Windows: ReactOS"
"can be installed and run on ReactOS

> And it is the only Argument to keep Windows XP support.
> If anyone does not know, React OS is a open source rebuild of Windows XP. Currently they support only Windows XP binary format, but they told me that the successor format used since Windows Vista is almost ready.
>
> The stats for Linus look fine since I think glib 2.5 is older then what we actually use.

A little addition for Linux should be gstreamer as the version 0.10 will
be exchanged with 1.0.

> I do not believe we have big changes on Sizing or memory consumption.
>
> I would think that a different page is a good idea.

+1

Marcus



> Am 24. März 2018 22:27:17 MEZ schrieb Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>:
>> I think we all know AOO can't stand frozen in time with respect to what
>> platforms, libraries etc it will work with in the future, maybe even
>> the
>> very near future. This is not uncommon by any means and AOO has made
>> minimum OS requirement changes for some platforms on a regular basis.
>> In
>> some cases, these changes were not known to the user community,
>> especially,
>> until release time, and this has caused issues in the past.
>>
>> Some development changes are in progress that seem to be different than
>> our
>> stated "System Requirements" for the 4.1.x series:
>>
>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html
>>
>> Would it be beneficial to discuss system changes for the 4.2.x series?
>> This
>> might be helpful to those who have traditionally been involved with AOO
>> either as a user, or developer.
>>
>> And, if such changes could be agreed upon, I think it would be very
>> beneficial to document these in  a new "Proposed System Requirements
>> for
>> 4.2.x" page that could get widespread viewing by all.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Pedro Lino-3

> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.
>
> Instead we can say in a different form that OpenOffice can run on
> reactOS, like:
>
> "possible alternative to Windows: ReactOS"
> "can be installed and run on ReactOS

Can it be installed on ReactOS? Has anyone verified this? I was never able to boot a Live ReactOS build of any version even on PCs that were running Windows XP. It will not boot either on any newer (Win7 or Win10) certified machines...

If somebody has had any different results with ReactOS and managed to install OpenOffice, I'm curious to know.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Matthias Seidel
Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:

>> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
>> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
>> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.
>>
>> Instead we can say in a different form that OpenOffice can run on
>> reactOS, like:
>>
>> "possible alternative to Windows: ReactOS"
>> "can be installed and run on ReactOS
> Can it be installed on ReactOS? Has anyone verified this? I was never able to boot a Live ReactOS build of any version even on PCs that were running Windows XP. It will not boot either on any newer (Win7 or Win10) certified machines...
>
> If somebody has had any different results with ReactOS and managed to install OpenOffice, I'm curious to know.
Yes, I could install it. And it worked (sort of...)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MatthiasSeidel/posts/DJjjjjJeyoy

Many optical glitches, but that may been a problem of my VM.

Regards,
   Matthias


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



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Marcus (OOo)
Am 25.03.2018 um 17:28 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>>> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
>>> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
>>> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> Instead we can say in a different form that OpenOffice can run on
>>> reactOS, like:
>>>
>>> "possible alternative to Windows: ReactOS"
>>> "can be installed and run on ReactOS
>> Can it be installed on ReactOS? Has anyone verified this? I was never able to boot a Live ReactOS build of any version even on PCs that were running Windows XP. It will not boot either on any newer (Win7 or Win10) certified machines...
>>
>> If somebody has had any different results with ReactOS and managed to install OpenOffice, I'm curious to know.
>
> Yes, I could install it. And it worked (sort of...)
>
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MatthiasSeidel/posts/DJjjjjJeyoy

ah, great. Then we can add this really to the new sysreq webpage.

Marcus


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Matthias Seidel


Am 25.03.2018 um 17:52 schrieb Marcus:

> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:28 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>>>> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
>>>> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform.
>>>> As we
>>>> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Instead we can say in a different form that OpenOffice can run on
>>>> reactOS, like:
>>>>
>>>> "possible alternative to Windows: ReactOS"
>>>> "can be installed and run on ReactOS
>>> Can it be installed on ReactOS? Has anyone verified this? I was
>>> never able to boot a Live ReactOS build of any version even on PCs
>>> that were running Windows XP. It will not boot either on any newer
>>> (Win7 or Win10) certified machines...
>>>
>>> If somebody has had any different results with ReactOS and managed
>>> to install OpenOffice, I'm curious to know.
>>
>> Yes, I could install it. And it worked (sort of...)
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MatthiasSeidel/posts/DJjjjjJeyoy
>
> ah, great. Then we can add this really to the new sysreq webpage.
AOO has still some problems on their latest build (they test with 4.1.2):

https://www.reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.8

I think we can mention it, but it is far from working smoothly...

Matthias

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



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Peter Kovacs-3
At a seconed thought maybe it is to early for the recommandation page. I
really can not wait when they hit beta stage. :-)
Maybe a blogpost which tells about the migration to MVCS14 we could
mention reactOS and that we keep win XP binary format for now.
That is maybe better.


On 25.03.2018 18:02, Matthias Seidel wrote:

>
> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:52 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:28 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>>>>> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
>>>>> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform.
>>>>> As we
>>>>> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead we can say in a different form that OpenOffice can run on
>>>>> reactOS, like:
>>>>>
>>>>> "possible alternative to Windows: ReactOS"
>>>>> "can be installed and run on ReactOS
>>>> Can it be installed on ReactOS? Has anyone verified this? I was
>>>> never able to boot a Live ReactOS build of any version even on PCs
>>>> that were running Windows XP. It will not boot either on any newer
>>>> (Win7 or Win10) certified machines...
>>>>
>>>> If somebody has had any different results with ReactOS and managed
>>>> to install OpenOffice, I'm curious to know.
>>> Yes, I could install it. And it worked (sort of...)
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MatthiasSeidel/posts/DJjjjjJeyoy
>> ah, great. Then we can add this really to the new sysreq webpage.
> AOO has still some problems on their latest build (they test with 4.1.2):
>
> https://www.reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.8
>
> I think we can mention it, but it is far from working smoothly...
>
> Matthias
>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3


On 03/25/2018 02:47 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
> Well the Java section seems to need updated. I think we are now at 1.7 or 1.8 right? Or do we still support 1.5 & 1.6? Don't think so. (And no body uses those versions I guess)
>
> On Windows we agreed on continued support of Windows XP. However should we maybe add ReactOS as official support?
> I am appreciating such a step.
> Technically there is no difference for us.
> And it is the only Argument to keep Windows XP support.
> If anyone does not know, React OS is a open source rebuild of Windows XP. Currently they support only Windows XP binary format, but they told me that the successor format used since Windows Vista is almost ready.
>
> The stats for Linus look fine since I think glib 2.5 is older then what we actually use.

This particular requirement is a source of confusion for me.

I'm pretty sure glib 2.5, is some internal RedHat (CentOS5) version
numbering scheme. This is really glibc, and we need to accurately
specify the minimal version we will be requiring.

>
> I do not believe we have big changes on Sizing or memory consumption.
>
> I would think that a different page is a good idea.
>
> Am 24. März 2018 22:27:17 MEZ schrieb Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>:
>> I think we all know AOO can't stand frozen in time with respect to what
>> platforms, libraries etc it will work with in the future, maybe even
>> the
>> very near future. This is not uncommon by any means and AOO has made
>> minimum OS requirement changes for some platforms on a regular basis.
>> In
>> some cases, these changes were not known to the user community,
>> especially,
>> until release time, and this has caused issues in the past.
>>
>> Some development changes are in progress that seem to be different than
>> our
>> stated "System Requirements" for the 4.1.x series:
>>
>> https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html
>>
>> Would it be beneficial to discuss system changes for the 4.2.x series?
>> This
>> might be helpful to those who have traditionally been involved with AOO
>> either as a user, or developer.
>>
>> And, if such changes could be agreed upon, I think it would be very
>> beneficial to document these in  a new "Proposed System Requirements
>> for
>> 4.2.x" page that could get widespread viewing by all.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

--
------------------------------------------
MzK

"Ring out the false, ring in the true."
  -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Andrea Pescetti-2
Kay Schenk wrote:
> This particular requirement is a source of confusion for me.
>
> I'm pretty sure glib 2.5, is some internal RedHat (CentOS5) version
> numbering scheme. This is really glibc, and we need to accurately
> specify the minimal version we will be requiring.

No they are two different things. See my explanation at
https://s.apache.org/hM06 (archives of this list). This means we should
list both, but insist on glibc in particular.

Regards,
   Andrea.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Kay Schenk-2
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 05:57 Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kay Schenk wrote:
> > This particular requirement is a source of confusion for me.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure glib 2.5, is some internal RedHat (CentOS5) version
> > numbering scheme. This is really glibc, and we need to accurately
> > specify the minimal version we will be requiring.
>
> No they are two different things. See my explanation at
> https://s.apache.org/hM06 (archives of this list). This means we should
> list both, but insist on glibc in particular.
>

Thanks Andrea -- after spending some time looking yesterday, I did see that
"glib" and "glibc" were two distinct entities. FWIW, I *think* "glib 5"
corresponds to the standard series if glib 1.x something.

In any case, we have this "glib 5" requirement for using Linux. Is this
still correct? Or maybe, what is the acceptable relationship pairing
between "glib" and "glibc" ?


> Regards,
>    Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

Don Lewis-2
On 26 Mar, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 05:57 Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>> > This particular requirement is a source of confusion for me.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure glib 2.5, is some internal RedHat (CentOS5) version
>> > numbering scheme. This is really glibc, and we need to accurately
>> > specify the minimal version we will be requiring.
>>
>> No they are two different things. See my explanation at
>> https://s.apache.org/hM06 (archives of this list). This means we should
>> list both, but insist on glibc in particular.
>>
>
> Thanks Andrea -- after spending some time looking yesterday, I did see that
> "glib" and "glibc" were two distinct entities. FWIW, I *think* "glib 5"
> corresponds to the standard series if glib 1.x something.
>
> In any case, we have this "glib 5" requirement for using Linux. Is this
> still correct? Or maybe, what is the acceptable relationship pairing
> between "glib" and "glibc" ?

They are kind of independent.  CentOS 6 has glibc version 2.12 and glib
version 2.28.



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Time to push on for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
not yet been folded in.

My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Matthias Seidel
Am 10.04.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
> not yet been folded in.
>
> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.

+1

Matthias

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



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Am 10.04.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
> not yet been folded in.
>
> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.

thanks for the reminder.

I also think it's time to start with splitting from the continued
developement and make a branch for 4.2.0.

The advantage is that we can start to create a stable code base - at the
moment at least for building, later on also for the code quality.

The disadvantage is that we then need to deal with merging code snippets
to trunk *and* 420_branch. But also at a later time this has to be done
anyway - so not really a disadvantage.

Marcus


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Damjan Jovanovic
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Hi

Before we start on 4.2.0 I would like to finish off porting one final
module, main/jvmfwk, to gbuild. Then I'll take a break from the build
changes, and would like to contribute these improvements:

* Overhaul our Java support. Support newer Java versions. Enhance Java
detection on *nix, adding OpenJDK and matching on prefixes (like openjdk*
for FreeBSD, eg. /usr/local/openjdk7, /usr/local/openjdk8) instead of fixed
strings such as "jdk". Look in /usr/lib too on 64 bit Linux instead of the
RedHat-only /usr/lib64. Accelerate Java autodetection by resolving symbolic
links and caching results to avoid the slowness of multiple unnecessary
checks of the same Java directory through different symlinks.
* GStreamer 0.1 and 1.0.
* Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge and ensure it's 100% compatible with the
old one.
* Library naming and symbol versioning audit of all libraries against 4.1.x.
* Run all tests against 4.1.x and trunk, and fix the regressions.
* Full PostgreSQL support (views, indexes, users, groups, GUI dialogs) if
there is time.
* Get the Mediawiki plugin working again, if there is time.


On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
> not yet been folded in.
>
> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
For the trunk->4.2.0 we can do what we do for Apache httpd. Create
a STATUS file which lists, via SVN commit revisions, what
backports are proposed to apply from trunk to the 4.2.0 branch.
Once 3 +1 votes are cast on the backport request, they get
committed to the branch.

Basically, trunk remains CTR whereas the branch becomes RTC
using a STATUS file as the backport tracker.

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 10.04.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
>> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
>> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
>> not yet been folded in.
>> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
>> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
>> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.
>
> thanks for the reminder.
>
> I also think it's time to start with splitting from the continued developement and make a branch for 4.2.0.
>
> The advantage is that we can start to create a stable code base - at the moment at least for building, later on also for the code quality.
>
> The disadvantage is that we then need to deal with merging code snippets to trunk *and* 420_branch. But also at a later time this has to be done anyway - so not really a disadvantage.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Damjan Jovanovic
+1 from me. After the below would be a good time to create
the 4.2.0-dev branch from trunk.

Do you have a timeframe for the below?

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 9:26 PM, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Before we start on 4.2.0 I would like to finish off porting one final
> module, main/jvmfwk, to gbuild. Then I'll take a break from the build
> changes, and would like to contribute these improvements:
>
> * Overhaul our Java support. Support newer Java versions. Enhance Java
> detection on *nix, adding OpenJDK and matching on prefixes (like openjdk*
> for FreeBSD, eg. /usr/local/openjdk7, /usr/local/openjdk8) instead of fixed
> strings such as "jdk". Look in /usr/lib too on 64 bit Linux instead of the
> RedHat-only /usr/lib64. Accelerate Java autodetection by resolving symbolic
> links and caching results to avoid the slowness of multiple unnecessary
> checks of the same Java directory through different symlinks.
> * GStreamer 0.1 and 1.0.
> * Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge and ensure it's 100% compatible with the
> old one.
> * Library naming and symbol versioning audit of all libraries against 4.1.x.
> * Run all tests against 4.1.x and trunk, and fix the regressions.
> * Full PostgreSQL support (views, indexes, users, groups, GUI dialogs) if
> there is time.
> * Get the Mediawiki plugin working again, if there is time.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
>> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
>> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
>> not yet been folded in.
>>
>> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
>> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
>> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Damjan Jovanovic
I think it would take about 2 weeks for the most essential items.

But sadly my Windows build is crashing on startup and my FreeBSD build is
crashing during the build in main/offapi due to some kind of memory bug in
idlc (either due to changes in FreeBSD or corruption of my system files),
so sadly I first need a few days to investigate and possibly reinstall my
setups.

I'll keep you updated.



On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 from me. After the below would be a good time to create
> the 4.2.0-dev branch from trunk.
>
> Do you have a timeframe for the below?
>
> > On Apr 10, 2018, at 9:26 PM, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Before we start on 4.2.0 I would like to finish off porting one final
> > module, main/jvmfwk, to gbuild. Then I'll take a break from the build
> > changes, and would like to contribute these improvements:
> >
> > * Overhaul our Java support. Support newer Java versions. Enhance Java
> > detection on *nix, adding OpenJDK and matching on prefixes (like openjdk*
> > for FreeBSD, eg. /usr/local/openjdk7, /usr/local/openjdk8) instead of
> fixed
> > strings such as "jdk". Look in /usr/lib too on 64 bit Linux instead of
> the
> > RedHat-only /usr/lib64. Accelerate Java autodetection by resolving
> symbolic
> > links and caching results to avoid the slowness of multiple unnecessary
> > checks of the same Java directory through different symlinks.
> > * GStreamer 0.1 and 1.0.
> > * Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge and ensure it's 100% compatible with the
> > old one.
> > * Library naming and symbol versioning audit of all libraries against
> 4.1.x.
> > * Run all tests against 4.1.x and trunk, and fix the regressions.
> > * Full PostgreSQL support (views, indexes, users, groups, GUI dialogs) if
> > there is time.
> > * Get the Mediawiki plugin working again, if there is time.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
> >> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
> >> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
> >> not yet been folded in.
> >>
> >> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
> >> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
> >> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: Time to push on for 4.2.0

Matthias Seidel
Just FYI:

The Windows build from buildbot and my local build based on revision
1828829 work fine for me.

Regards,

  Matthias


Am 12.04.2018 um 19:15 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:

> I think it would take about 2 weeks for the most essential items.
>
> But sadly my Windows build is crashing on startup and my FreeBSD build is
> crashing during the build in main/offapi due to some kind of memory bug in
> idlc (either due to changes in FreeBSD or corruption of my system files),
> so sadly I first need a few days to investigate and possibly reinstall my
> setups.
>
> I'll keep you updated.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 from me. After the below would be a good time to create
>> the 4.2.0-dev branch from trunk.
>>
>> Do you have a timeframe for the below?
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2018, at 9:26 PM, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Before we start on 4.2.0 I would like to finish off porting one final
>>> module, main/jvmfwk, to gbuild. Then I'll take a break from the build
>>> changes, and would like to contribute these improvements:
>>>
>>> * Overhaul our Java support. Support newer Java versions. Enhance Java
>>> detection on *nix, adding OpenJDK and matching on prefixes (like openjdk*
>>> for FreeBSD, eg. /usr/local/openjdk7, /usr/local/openjdk8) instead of
>> fixed
>>> strings such as "jdk". Look in /usr/lib too on 64 bit Linux instead of
>> the
>>> RedHat-only /usr/lib64. Accelerate Java autodetection by resolving
>> symbolic
>>> links and caching results to avoid the slowness of multiple unnecessary
>>> checks of the same Java directory through different symlinks.
>>> * GStreamer 0.1 and 1.0.
>>> * Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge and ensure it's 100% compatible with the
>>> old one.
>>> * Library naming and symbol versioning audit of all libraries against
>> 4.1.x.
>>> * Run all tests against 4.1.x and trunk, and fix the regressions.
>>> * Full PostgreSQL support (views, indexes, users, groups, GUI dialogs) if
>>> there is time.
>>> * Get the Mediawiki plugin working again, if there is time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have still not yet made any strategic determination... We have
>>>> a possible scenario where gstreamer can be built regardless of
>>>> what version the build system has in place, but, afaict, that has
>>>> not yet been folded in.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we
>>>> can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and
>>>> start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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]
>>
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
12