View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pluby The Architect


Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
You do not need to save either the old installer or the old patch. So far, I have only been changing implementations within existing C++ methods so any new binaries can be copied directly into an existing Neo/J 1.1 installation. What this means is that you only need to install the new patch into an existing installation. Also, don't worry if you installed an old patch already as the new patch will replace the same binaries that were installed with the old patch. In essence, this makes the new patch a cumulative patch.
Patrick |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly

Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
pluby wrote: | You do not need to save either the old installer or the old patch. So far, I have only been changing implementations within existing C++ methods so any new binaries can be copied directly into an existing Neo/J 1.1 installation. What this means is that you only need to install the new patch into an existing installation. Also, don't worry if you installed an old patch already as the new patch will replace the same binaries that were installed with the old patch. In essence, this makes the new patch a cumulative patch.
|
I was going to state this because of the various patches for the beta and the release candidate.
Patches are cumulative. If you want to edit the makefile (and I recommend against this unless you are ABSOLUTELY certain you know what you are doing) you can set up a sequence of patches starting with patch 1 and working up by editing the last version and current version information. Again, I highly recommend against this.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly

Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
pluby wrote: | FYI. I just committed a bunch of changes to the vcl module that significantly reduces the amount of flicker. I found that vcl was painting a window twice when you first opened it and I have eliminated one of the redundant painting operations. |
Looks much better. A significant decrease in flicker and the screen paints better. It does take more time for NeoOffice to launch and load a file than before, but this is a good tradeoff.
BTW, I will send you my updated makefile and patches.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
skuld Agent

Joined: Mar 20, 2005 Posts: 19 Location: Toulouse, France
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
pluby and jjmckenzie51 : thanks for your answers  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly

Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
skuld wrote: | pluby and jjmckenzie51 : thanks for your answers  |
You are very welcome.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fabrizio venerandi Guest

|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
neooffice/j 1.2 uses 1.1.4 or 1.1.5 Oo code?
f. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pluby The Architect


Joined: Jun 16, 2003 Posts: 11949
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
fabrizio venerandi wrote: | neooffice/j 1.2 uses 1.1.4 or 1.1.5 Oo code? |
I'm developing with OOo 1.1.4 (so that people will be able to test my Java 1.4 code with an existing Neo/J 1.1 installation). James building my code with OOo 1.1.5 so that when my Java 1.4 code becomes stable, we can be ready to push a full release with OOo 1.1.5.
Patrick |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fabrizio venerandi Guest

|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
thank you for the answer.
f. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly

Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
pluby wrote: | fabrizio venerandi wrote: | neooffice/j 1.2 uses 1.1.4 or 1.1.5 Oo code? |
I'm developing with OOo 1.1.4 (so that people will be able to test my Java 1.4 code with an existing Neo/J 1.1 installation). James building my code with OOo 1.1.5 so that when my Java 1.4 code becomes stable, we can be ready to push a full release with OOo 1.1.5. |
I'm using the release candidate code. There are still issues with 1.1.5 that has delayed its release. Once these issues are overcome, 1.1.5 will be released.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ovvldc Captain Naiobi

Joined: Sep 13, 2004 Posts: 2352 Location: Zürich, CH
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
jjmckenzie51 wrote: | I'm using the release candidate code. There are still issues with 1.1.5 that has delayed its release. Once these issues are overcome, 1.1.5 will be released. |
Same seems to be happening to OOo 1.9 beta. The beta 2 was supposed to come out this month, and by my calendar, they have precious little time left. I suppose it just goes to show the difficulty of handling such complex projects.
Any idea when the causes for these delays may be overcome?
Good luck,
Oscar _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adam_Moore Pure-blooded Human

Joined: Jul 10, 2005 Posts: 36
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
Last minute showstopper bugs are the cause of these problems. So you know Beta 2 will be advertised on Monday. 1.1.5 will have an RC4. They are looking for September 5th for that release. _________________ Adam Moore
OpenDocument Fellowship
Adam.Moore@opendocumentfellowship.org
Demand Microsoft Support OpenDocument
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly

Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
Adam_Moore wrote: | Last minute showstopper bugs are the cause of these problems. So you know Beta 2 will be advertised on Monday. 1.1.5 will have an RC4. They are looking for September 5th for that release. |
The major showstopper for both of these is the appearence that they will not build on either Panther or Tiger. Eric B. is heading up the effort to get 1.1.5 working and I don't know who is working on OOo 2.0 Beta 2, but I suspect this is Eric, again. I'm hoping to see this happen soon. I can build SRX645_m57 on Tiger with a bunch of patches that I worked through. I'm hoping to get the JCA done this weekend (it is at my SOs apartment which is 70 miles from where I live) and into SUN. Once it is accepted, I will ask to start a child workspace where I can put the patched code and get it to QA.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adam_Moore Pure-blooded Human

Joined: Jul 10, 2005 Posts: 36
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
From what I'm reading 1.1.5 doesn't have problems with panther it's only 2.0, but I could be mistaken. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51 The Anomaly

Joined: Apr 01, 2005 Posts: 1055 Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
Adam_Moore wrote: | From what I'm reading 1.1.5 doesn't have problems with panther it's only 2.0, but I could be mistaken. |
It appears that 1.1.4 will be the last version of OOo that will work reliably with Jaguar (10.2.x). 1.1.5 will have as it's baseline Panther (10.3.x). There are reported problems running Panther builds of both 1.1.5rc3 and 2.0 Beta 2 which were built on Panther on systems running Tiger (10.4.x). However, Eric B's builds do work on Tiger (I have proof of this) of both.
Here is something to consider: If a build is done on Tiger it should not run on Panther, however a build on Panther does run on Tiger or it should.
In any case, we need to keep up with the actions on the 1.1.5 side in order to have a version of Neo/J that will incorporate the new features (such as read only of OpenDocuments) of this new version. However, this should happen after Java 1.4 support is finalized by Patrick and Ed. All I do is build what they produce on Tiger to make sure that it is possible and that 'stuff' does not break.
James |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OPENSTEP The One


Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
The fundamental problem is that no one doing the builds for official release comprehends the needs of the problem at hand.
Since libraries are incorporated in the OOo build process through simplistic -L directives, you have to build the program on the minimal configuration of OS + X server + supporting apps on which you want the s/w to be able to run. If you link against a newer binary version, dyld will barf when it can't find the correct symbols.
I used to spend a lot of time on the X11 builds and underestimated the work producing a build and installer that can function on the majority of OS and supporting X11 variants. It's not trivial, but it's incredibly boring and requires a lot of free partitions lingering around to do it right.
ed |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|