[M3devel] Hudson question

[Jay K]

[truncated as usual..]










----------------------------------------
> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> To: wagner at elegosoft.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: RE: [M3devel] Hudson question
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:12:30 +0000
>
>
> It doesn't likely make a difference.
>
>
> Before you needed Cygwin or Interix.
> Now you need Cygwin or Interix, and probably Java.
> Java will probably be a sticking point on various platforms,
> but the gains are also very nice where it is available.
> I see there has been work done on an assembly-free Java VM
> since Sun open sourced their VM, so that promises increased portability.
> (One wonders some about the Critical Mass VM).
>
>
> Writing more .cmd isn't going to help anything imho.
> It's just more hard to maintain code that someone
> will have to maintain in parallel to Olaf's .sh.
> Which is why I favor Python -- portable, no duplicated effort.
>
>
> "Hard to main" as it, sure, it is easy to get started, but
> what happens when you decide you need an array, or a hash table?
> Or any of a number of basic programming constructs?
> Ok, I guess you have while loops, using goto.
> Local variables. At least that are strings. Everything is a string.
> cmd has one or two surprisingly powerfuli features, such as for /f
> and set /a. If you can't do your work with them, you can't do it.
> sh is a bit more portable than Python, but not by much and
> imho at too large a cost in maintainability/generality.
> It still seems to me like a string based language that can't do much,
> but I admit I'm not practised in it. (I am very practised in .cmd.)
>
>
> You know, the fact that expression evaluation is in some mix of the "[" command
> and maybe in sh itself. That people write if xxx true else yyy instead
> of if not xxx yyy.
> The fact that Solaris is different.
> The fact that quoting is needed in various places.
> Quoting always bothers me. It is hard to predict how many levels
> of unquoting will be done.
> I suspect cmd, sh, and Tcl are all in the same overly string based boat.
> For example in Tcl, { } appear to have the same meaning as in C and C++, good,
> but in fact they are escape characters, very wierd and bad.
>
>
> Cygwin and Interix both probably work fine.
> Someone just has to set them up and run them.
>
>
> Consider Cygwin and Interix almost the same.
> Interix is much faster, if you are calling fork a lot.
> Cygwin is slightly more compatible with Linux/Posix.
>
>
> Interix has a few ways in which is resembles Linux/Posix more though,
> such as not using extensions on executables, using ".so", supporting
> runpath.
>
>
> I think with Cygwin 1.7, both it and Interix go to extreme
> of supporting backward slash and colon in paths.
> Interix actually ors in 0xFF00 to such characters but
> it is transparent to Interix code. Or maybe that's what
> Cygwin does. I don't remember. It is completely non
> transparent and discoverable if you look at the results from Win32.
>
>
> Interix probably a larger download, because the
> part that is mostly "built in" is basically nothing,
> just some infrastructure and very few utilities.
> I don't think there is even sh or ksh.
> Everything else is one large download.
>
>
> On XP nothing is "builtin", there is just one large download.
> "builtin" is on Server 2003 R2, Vista, Server 2008, etc.
>
>
> (Oh, and Cygwin 1.5 works on Win9x, Interix only down to windows 2000.
> But Cygwin 1.7 drops Win9x support, but maybe still works on NT4?)
>
>
> - Jay
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:17:29 +0200
>> From: wagner at elegosoft.com
>> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Hudson question
>>
>> Quoting Randy Coleburn :
>>
>>> Olaf:
>>>
>>> If we switch to Hudson, does that offer any improvement in the Windows arena?
>>>
>>> We haven't been able to get Tinderbox to work for Windows.
>>>
>>> I don't mind hosting something for Windows to do the tests if that will help.
>>
>> Well, yes and no ;-)
>>
>> Hudson itself should be as easy to install on Windows as on Unix,
>> as it's completely written in Java. You just download the hudson.war
>> file and start it with java -jar hudson.war. Java should be at least
>> a recent 1.6 distribution. You can just try that and play around with
>> the server if you like.
>>
>> The regression test scripts are all written in Bourne shell syntax,
>> so you'd need Cygwin to run those again. There are probably a few
>> quirks left to make them really work on Windows. Perhaps the Interix
>> POSIX environment Jay has told about may be better suited, but I don't
>> know.
>>
>> In the Hudson setup on birch and luthien I've used parts of the
>> regression scripts for Tinderbox. If we want the test scripts to be
>> the same on all systems, it may still be difficult.
>>
>> On the other hand, we could start with a much simpler setup on Windows.
>> Begin with just one test job that checks out and compiles everything.
>> That should be easy to achieve. I don't know if you can use the cmd
>> scripts in Hudson on Windows, but I assume you can. If that works,
>> we could start with transferring your build results to the Hudson
>> server on birch. Or you could allow birch to control your Hudson
>> installation as a slave server.
>>
>> Does that sound feasible?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Olaf
>> --
>> Olaf Wagner -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
>> Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
>> phone: +49 30 23 45 86 96 mobile: +49 177 2345 869 fax: +49 30 23 45 86 95
>> http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
>> Handelregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194
>>