No Win builds?

Hi all,

currently we again have the problem that we get no current WIN Master
builds on the Tinderbox Server.

I see some successful builds (?) on
<http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html>, especially
Win-x86_6, but there is no build for download on
<http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/master/>

On <http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/A> I see:
- @16-minimal_build: only has textfiles
   latest build:  2012-07-11_08.24.19
- @20-With-Symbol:
   latest build:  2012-07-15_01.33.34
- @6-fast:  only has textfiles
   latest build:  before 2012-07-16_15.35.37
- @6: only has textfiles
   latest build: before 2012-07-19_13.12.38
   On <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Tinderbox>
   I only see 1 Tinderbx @6?
- @7-MinGW/master: empty
   latest build: ?
- @15-Prague_Win32: empty
   latest build: ?
- _9-Voreppe /libreoffice-3-6: contributes 3.6 builds
   Filename 3.6.1.0 is difficult to classify
   What is the difference to @9?

It would be very useful for me to have a feed or similar with
information concerning latest available WIN builds. Is there any
possibility?


Best Regards

Rainer
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Rainer Bielefeld
<[hidden email]> wrote:
humm, indeed. apparently push_nightly.sh is not finding stuff to push
anymore for some reason...
the build happened and we tried to push them, but nothing get pushed...
/me investigating

Norbert
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Sunday 22 of July 2012, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> currently we again have the problem that we get no current WIN Master
> builds on the Tinderbox Server.
>
> I see some successful builds (?) on
> <http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html>, especially
> Win-x86_6, but there is no build for download on
> <http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/master/>

 Nightlies have been broken since *Env*.sh removal, the nightlies code has not
been updated for config_host.mk . I've fixed that, whoever has a tinderbox
uploading nightlies, please update.

 There was one more thing broken. The recent changes to get dev-install
working changed the package format built in the 'build' target to .zip, so
there was no .msi package to upload. I've reverted that change and moved the
FORCE2ARCHIVE part to dev-install, but this whole 'build' target looks broken
to me. What's the point of building a .msi archive there? Especially now with
dev-install that looks completely pointless and it should have its own
target. Does somebody understand this perl install cruft?

--
 Lubos Lunak
 [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Lubos Lunak <[hidden email]> wrote:
That was borked but that is not why it stop uploading. the INPATH
issue meant the the find was from instsetoo_native rather than
instsetoo_native/$INPATH
I did patch it too concurrently to you... but I used a simple grep +
sed to extract INPATH=  simpler and most importantly avoid  using
'make' on platform for which that may not resolve to a gnumake.

>
>  There was one more thing broken. The recent changes to get dev-install
> working changed the package format built in the 'build' target to .zip, so
> there was no .msi package to upload. I've reverted that change and moved the
> FORCE2ARCHIVE part to dev-install, but this whole 'build' target looks broken
> to me. What's the point of building a .msi archive there? Especially now with
> dev-install that looks completely pointless and it should have its own
> target. Does somebody understand this perl install cruft?

we worked on it at the same time :-) I added the push of LibO*.zip
files in push_nightlies.sh.
re-started the @16 box, will see in 30 minutes or so if that solved it :-)

Norbert
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Norbert Thiebaud schrieb:

> humm, indeed. apparently push_nightly.sh is not finding stuff to push


Hi,

today I see some progress,
/daily/Win-x86@6/master/2012-07-22_22.08.18
contains a build.

Others still empty!


Best regards


Rainer
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Sunday 22 of July 2012, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> ... but I used a simple grep +
> sed to extract INPATH=  simpler and most importantly avoid  using
> 'make' on platform for which that may not resolve to a gnumake.

 You forgot to tell grep what to grep for, so if anybody has updated after
this, please pull again.

> I added the push of LibO*.zip files in push_nightlies.sh.

 Is there any point in uploading a .zip file with a Windows build?

--
 Lubos Lunak
 [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On 22/07/12 16:36, Lubos Lunak wrote:

>  There was one more thing broken. The recent changes to get dev-install
> working changed the package format built in the 'build' target to .zip, so
> there was no .msi package to upload. I've reverted that change and moved the
> FORCE2ARCHIVE part to dev-install,

oh i didn't notice that FORCE2ARCHIVE would prevent MSI from being
built, but looking at the actual instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk it
overrides PKGFORMAT, so it's not a surprise :)

if we want to build a MSI anyway, then building the archive in
dev-install makes a lot of sense.

> but this whole 'build' target looks broken
> to me. What's the point of building a .msi archive there? Especially now with
> dev-install that looks completely pointless and it should have its own
> target.

"build" should build the install set(s) that the user has told configure
to build with the --with-package-format option.

apparently that defaults to nothing for Linux and to MSI for WNT.

for building everything except instset there is already a
build-packimages target.

> Does somebody understand this perl install cruft?

i, for one, certainly don't. which is why i've implemented dev-install
with FORCE2ARCHIVE, after finding that modifying ooinstall to call the
installer with --format=installed didn't yield success.


On 23/07/12 11:30, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Sunday 22 of July 2012, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

>> I added the push of LibO*.zip files in push_nightlies.sh.
>
>  Is there any point in uploading a .zip file with a Windows build?

that's a good question, it depends on what you want to test;
for testing office functionality it's probably easier to use zips
because they're trivial to install (just unzip) and use a private
profile directory automatically, but they don't have bundled MSVC
runtimes or system integration so you can't test that




_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Hi Michael,

On 2012-07-23 at 12:38 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:

> >> I added the push of LibO*.zip files in push_nightlies.sh.
> >
> >  Is there any point in uploading a .zip file with a Windows build?
>
> that's a good question, it depends on what you want to test;
> for testing office functionality it's probably easier to use zips
> because they're trivial to install (just unzip) and use a private
> profile directory automatically, but they don't have bundled MSVC
> runtimes or system integration so you can't test that

Adding the QA guys - from my point of view, the nightly should be as
close to our 'normal' installation as possible (ie. .msi), so that the
QA guys can see installation problems early too.  But up to them do
decide, I guess.

Rainer, all - what do you prefer?

Regards,
Kendy

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Lubos Lunak <[hidden email]> wrote:
I suspect that the 2 are exclusive right... so either there is a zip or a msi
so push_nightlies.sh should not care and do a best effort

Norbert
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Jan Holesovsky schrieb:

> Adding the QA guys - from my point of view, the nightly should be as
> close to our 'normal' installation as possible (ie. .msi), so that the
> QA guys can see installation problems early too.  But up to them do
> decide, I guess.

Hi,

that all is a little true for particular tester's preferences. I usually
do server installations (msiexec /a) and modify bootstrap.ini to an
existing LibOdev profile, what has been copied from my normal
installation profile. So I have a realistic test environment. I think
that would also be possible with  zip, and I already did so with MinGW
builds sometimes. I saw few installer problems, so I believe .ZIPs as
daily builds would not have bigger disadvantages.

For occasional testers the simple "installation" of zips (using their
individual own profile) even might be favorable, so someone has the
possibility to test a fix for a particular problem with a master build
without need to learn anything about parallel installation or similar.
Most times that worked well for me with MinGW builds, what came very
reliable every day, but currently source has run dry? We will discuss
those needs additionally during German QA-Weekend.

An Additional advantage of master.zip builds might be that we could
invite interested WIN users to see and test new features very early.

For me that "quick and easy" is less important because I have to do some
"administration overhead" to keep overview for the lots of versions.

Very interesting for me (and may be 5 ... 10 other "power testers" would
be some kind of feed / newsletter or whatever with "New build from
Tinderbx @xx available"

Best regards


Rainer


_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On 07/23/2012 12:38 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
See
<http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=05250e05b00f363c2c65e6099714070beea89ca0>
"sb118: independent of PKGFORMAT, always build a default-language
openoffice product also in archive format, so that tests that require an
OOo installation (like smoketestoo_native) have one available" and
<http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=292efdc53861499dbef66122a5299b01019e265b>
"sb118: always set PKGFORMAT (so that always building
openoffice_en-US.archive in instsetoo_native/util also works on
Windows)" for how this was achieved in OOo times.  On all platforms, it
always built an additional archive installation set in module
insetsetoo_native, so that during the later build of module
smoketestoo_native that archive installation set could be unpacked and
used for the smoke test (as well as any subsequenttests; only on Windows
the installation set was not unpacked once to solver/*/installation, but
for each test anew to a temp folder, to work around problems with long
file paths).

No idea how much of that got broken in the meantime though.  (As for
non-Windows, the solver/*/installation set used by the various tests is
now produced by another means via "make dev-install".)

Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Monday 23 of July 2012, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 They are not exclusive. Right now 'make build' creates .msi again after I
partially reverted the dev-install change, and dev-install builds the .zip .
So a tinderbox with the latest tinbuild that uploads nightlies and builds
also tests now presumably uploads both.

 I don't know which one is better (and I think plain build should not create
either), but as I said, I don't see a reason to upload both.

--
 Lubos Lunak
 [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Lubos Lunak <[hidden email]> wrote:
to provide a choice to the would be tester ?
so he could choose the zip or msi according to what is convenient for him ?

Norbert
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice