[Mono-dev] Repeat builds of core assemblies
Bryan Crotaz
bryan.crotaz at silvercurve.co.uk
Mon May 12 16:30:10 UTC 2014
Ooooh pretty..... Will give it a go.
Can the build script be extended to install needed cygwin packages if
they're missing? When I first tried to build I had no idea how to find the
packages, or how to install them - for newbie contributors this would
remove a lot (in my case 2 days) of head scratching.
On 12 May 2014 17:23, Alex J Lennon <ajlennon at dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2014 17:07, Bryan Crotaz wrote:
>
> Will this make building on windows possible?
>
> Bryan,
>
> I've written a walkthrough here for building 3.4.0 from the release
> tarball and 3.4.1 from git on Windows.
>
> http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/769292/How-to-build-Mono-on-Windows
>
> Best regards, Alex
>
>
> Bryan Crotaz
> Silver Curve
>
> On 12 May 2014, at 16:59, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at xamarin.com> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Another update: I am almost done with the work, only one cycle left to
> resolve and I will be able to land the changes.
>
> All the changes are on a branch on github.
>
> MIguel
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at xamarin.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello guys,
>>
>> Just a follow up to my previous posting on this.
>>
>> I have managed to untangle this mess, and now I have a clean build that
>> does not involve overwriting assemblies.
>>
>> In addition to untangling this, I added dependencies on all the
>> assemblies involved in this circular dependency mess so if you type "make"
>> in any of System, System.Xml, System.Security, Mono.Security or
>> System.Configuration, all the dependencies will be properly built.
>>
>> During the fixing, I noticed that our System.Xml build must have broke
>> a few eons ago, because there was code in place to perform a 2-stage
>> System.Xml build as well (without and with System.Configuration support),
>> but nobody noticed that this had happened. While I fixed this, it raises
>> the obvious point that nobody really cares (or likes) System.Configuration.
>>
>> While doing this review, I found a few other places that also have
>> these ugly loops, so I am going to be fixing those as well.
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at xamarin.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> I was looking at making the MSBuild system work, and during the
>>> process I have encountered a few problems that we have in our existing
>>> build system that are problematic.
>>>
>>> The problem is that System, System.XML and System.Configuration are
>>> each defined in terms of the other assemblies. So we gradually bring up
>>> each one of those assemblies up by first compiling a stub System, which we
>>> use to build System.XML and System.Configuration. Then we rebuild System,
>>> this time referencing System.XML and System.Configuration so we can take a
>>> dependency on them, and so on.
>>>
>>> To build a complete System.dll for a particular profile (net_2_0,
>>> net_4_0, etc) takes three steps:
>>>
>>> - Core Build
>>> - Secondary Build:
>>> - Core Build +
>>> - Defines: XML_DEP + SECURITY_DEP
>>> - Refs:
>>> - -r:PrebuiltSystem=../lib/Previous/System.dll
>>> - -r:System.Xml.dll
>>> - -r:MonoSecurity=Mono.Security.dll
>>> - Final Build:
>>> - Secondary Build +
>>> - defines: -d:CONFIGURATION_DEP
>>> - Refs:
>>> - System.Configuration.dll
>>>
>>> The above is what is required to bring up System.
>>>
>>> Our implementation has one major problem: it overwrites the
>>> intermediate files. So the core build output is overwritten by the
>>> secondary build, and the secondary build is overwritten by the final build.
>>>
>>> It seems that historically, instead of introducing temporary
>>> directories for each stage, instead we hacked our way out of it. We
>>> introduced a LIBRARY_USE_INTERMEDIATE_FILE whose sole purpose was to work
>>> around the case where Windows was actively telling us we were doing
>>> something wrong (we were overwriting a file that we were actively
>>> referencing!)
>>>
>>> The above is also likely going to prevent reliable parallel builds, or
>>> probably means that we introduced some gross hack to make the above work in
>>> parallel.
>>>
>>> I am going to try to fix this, but the Makefile goop is pretty dense,
>>> and I might fail. I just figured I should share my findings in case
>>> civilization comes to an end and a future archeologist tries to figure out
>>> why this was not working.
>>>
>>> These are the defines that we use to bring up System for each profile:
>>>
>>> basic Profile:
>>>
>>> basic: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:BOOTSTRAP_BASIC -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0
>>>
>>> basic: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:BOOTSTRAP_BASIC -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0
>>> -d:XML_DEP
>>>
>>>
>>> Build Profile:
>>>
>>> build: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0
>>>
>>> build: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP
>>>
>>>
>>> Net 2.0 profile:
>>>
>>> net_2_0: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0
>>>
>>> net_2_0: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP
>>> -d:SECURITY_DEP
>>>
>>> net_2_0: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP
>>> -d:SECURITY_DEP -d:CONFIGURATION_DEP
>>>
>>>
>>> Net 4.0 profile:
>>>
>>> net_4_0: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0
>>>
>>> net_4_0: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP -d:SECURITY_DEP
>>>
>>> net_4_0: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP -d:SECURITY_DEP -d:CONFIGURATION_DEP
>>>
>>>
>>> Net 4.5 profile:
>>>
>>> net_4_5: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:NET_4_5 -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0
>>>
>>> net_4_5: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:NET_4_5 -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP -d:SECURITY_DEP
>>>
>>> net_4_5: -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -d:NET_3_0 -d:NET_3_5 -d:NET_4_0
>>> -d:NET_4_5 -d:CONFIGURATION_2_0 -d:XML_DEP -d:SECURITY_DEP
>>> -d:CONFIGURATION_DEP
>>>
>>>
>>> Miguel
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing listMono-devel-list at lists.ximian.comhttp://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>
>
>
--
Bryan Crotaz
Managing Director
Silver Curve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20140512/bba5a243/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Mono-devel-list
mailing list