How are installation sets being built?
sbergman at redhat.com
Thu Oct 10 00:14:58 PDT 2013
On 10/09/2013 10:58 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I was always thinking that --enable-epm (despite its name) was the magic
>> autogen.input switch to instruct a top-level "make" (or "make check") to
>> also build installation sets (deb, rpm, dmg, msi, ...), on all
> Nope - but it is the prerequisite to build deb and rpms - and was also
> uses for dmg, due to similarities, but msi is completely different and
> not supported by epm.
Sure. It's just that I think we want to have a trigger whether or not
to produce installation sets during a build, and I always thought that
--enable-epm, despite its name and original purpose, achieved that.
(But, it appears, it happens to achieve that only for non-Windows builds.)
>> So, I am wondering how exactly the official TDF-released installation sets
>> are being built for the various platforms. What are the autogen.sh
>> (autogen.input) switches, and what are the exact make command lines?
Ah, good to know. And the commands issued to do the build are just
./autogen.sh and a no-arguments "make"? (Btw,
misses the manually updated flex now, IIUC, right?)
>> is that stored in git or similar (if it is stored anywhere at all)?
> Not stored in git - the relevant feature switches are all in the
> distro-config, the other parameters are just details, like where to
> store external tarballs, what languages to build, options to
> accellerate one-off builds (disable-dependency-tracking) - and the
> packaging options for linux.
Yeah, I get the idea.
> build process creates input file for epm, and epm converts to rpm spec
> file and deb input file and runs rpmbuild/dpkg to pack the binaries
> into the package.
> without epm, you cannot feed rpmbuild/deb with the corresponding
> controlfile, so that's why this also toggles building of installation
> I don't know why it is used for Mac, as there are no individual
> packages, but I assume that's scp2 heritage.
...which brings me back to my original question for a universal trigger
whether or not to produce installation sets during a build.
Seeing that --enable-epm currently effectively fulfills that role
everywhere but on Windows, one option would be to make it fulfill that
role on Windows too. (I have a local patch to do that.)
The alternative would be to introduce an explicit
--enable-installation-sets. Opinions, anyone?
>> Similarly, how exactly are any of those "nightly" installation sets
>> (uploaded from select tinderboxes, IIUC) being built? How can you trace
> My understanding is that those are the regular installsets that are
> created using epm.
Yes, that's my understanding, too.
> The configure switches for the individual tinderboxes are in the logs
> on tinderbox.libreoffice.org, and there should be a build-info file in
> the directory with the uploaded packages, e.g.
> that lists the configure switches.
Ah, there's an example of such a file, thanks. I was pretty sure we had
something like that, just couldn't find any in that maze of mostly empty
directories at <http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/>.
More information about the LibreOffice