Re: GSoC project about binary packaging

[Philip Nienhuis]

Michael Goffioul wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've a student who's supposed to work on improving/completing binary
> packaging of octave on Windows and OS X during the next 2 months.
> However, I can see that there are already 3 to 4 people actively working
> on MXE. MXE/octave seems to already work for MinGW cross and native, as
> well as native Linux. So I'm a bit concerned that there won't be much
> left to do for the student.

Thanks for bringing this up, Michael. Good point.


My personal goal is not quite to make a binary Windows installer (I've 
no involvement with OSX). I'm trying to just get Octave building 
natively on MinGW, simply to be able to:

- ...avoid the
{[clone repo in Linux/bootstrap/]adapt-code/configure/build/make 
dist/copy to MXE/adapt SHA1 chksum/build again now in 
MXE/transplant-to-Windows/install/at last, try out the new fix}
  hassle associated with the "blind" (but otherwise extremely 
efficient) MXE cross-build on Linux;

- ...run a "make check" in Windows (that's a thing that MXE cannot 
offer), as I think that is a required quality check on any platform 
before a binary can be distributed.
That would be a goal for GSOC as well but as it's such a small step once 
a build has succeeded I think that doesn't matter;

- ...build a debug-enabled Octave. There are a few debugging targets 
(old bugs specific for Windows) that I think need such a debug build.

Once Octave builds fine (and I think it does now, it just got past the 
previously offending parser stumbling blocks here ) I will limit myself 
to trying to fix/improve Octave itself on the Windows side, if only 
because lack of time.

> So I'd like you to help define clear goals for this project in order to
> avoid stepping on each other's toes. For instance, I had listed adding
> support for OpenBLAS as a possible goal for him, but I saw today it had
> been added to MXE yesterday.

Documented empirical evidence with MinGW builds indicates that multiple 
architecture-specific blas libs may be needed for a MinGW binary. 
Selecting/suggesting the right one would be a good sub-task :-)

> Basically, what's left at the moment?
> - writing a NSI installer that's a bit smarter than "dump everything";
> it should also support smart reinstallation and package addition (as in:
> re-run the installer to install additional components, which were not
> selected previously)

... or not available at the time (e.g., new packages)

- Deinstall packages and even Octave, plus proper cleaning up (.config 
files in the profile, etc) would also be nice.

- How about an installer that could detect and then upgrade an existing 
Octave MinGW or MSVC installation in place, rather than add a complete 
tree next to the existing one?
I have about 7 or more independent MinGW/MSVC installations on my box, 
each with the usual texinfo/makeinfo/ls/..... just to be able to test 
the io package and do some basic bug triaging; that could be arranged 
more effciently, if only to conserve disk space.

> - missing octave-forge packages + dependencies
> - OS X
> (feel free the extend the list)

- A thing that is on my list but that I'd gladly delegate is to get the 
built-in core Java support activated in the MinGW builds (but maybe it 
is too difficult for GSOC).
Until now java-enabled builds consistently break somewhere in liboctave 
- I have reported it a few times in the ML list. Whether it is specific 
to MXE I don't know.
I think Java support (optional or not) is required for a complete 
binary, but depending on POV it might not fit the GSOC perspective.

- Documenting the build stuff for sub-guru levels, or even lower, so 
that more Windows developers could be attracted, would also be a welcome 
sub-task. I have a short text ready that could serve as a start.

> For OS X, I'd like some input from OS X users to assess what's doable.
> For instance, is it possible to integrate installer building inside MXE
> (for instance using some native OS X compilation)? I also remember a
> recent mail from Ben mentioning some new efforts in MacPorts to get
> octave compiled on OS X.
>
> At the end of the day, I hope there will be enough work to be done to
> make a GSoC project.

I doubt that there will be too little left.

Philip