OpenEuphoria

1. VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by bernie Mar 16, 2009
• 926 views

While building SVN1488 on XP I get the following error.
Has there been a change in configure or makefile.wat ??

I reverted back to SVN1486 but I get the same error.

I see a lot of compiling going on with the PRE stuff has that
got anything to do with the revget.ex command line ???

The current SVN I am using is SVN1431 so I don't want to spend
hours of compiling to narrow it down.

        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
        1 file(s) copied. 
Open Watcom Make Version 1.8 
Portions Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Sybase, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 
Source code is available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License. 
See http://www.openwatcom.org/ for details. 
------- ALL ----------- 
        wmake -h -f makefile.wat winall DEBUG= MANAGED_MEM= CONFIG=config.wat 
------- WINALL ----------- 
wmake -h -f makefile.wat interpreter DEBUG= MANAGED_MEM= CONFIG=config.wat 
wmake -h -f makefile.wat E:\eu_master\source\intobj\main-.c EX=e:\eu_master\bin\ 
exwc.exe EU_TARGET=int. OBJDIR=intobj DEBUG= MANAGED_MEM= CONFIG=config.wat DEBU 
G= MANAGED_MEM= 
mkdir E:\eu_master\source\intobj 
mkdir E:\eu_master\source\intobj\back 
e:\eu_master\bin\exwc.exe -i ..\include revget.ex 
Incorrect usage. 
Error(E42): Last command making (rev.e) returned a bad status 
Should this file be deleted [Yes/No] ? 

3. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Mar 16, 2009
• 832 views

Bernie,

Thanks for pointing this out. I am not on Windows and building seems to work OK here under Linux. I will be on windows a bit later this evening and I'll sort it out if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Jeremy

5. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by bernie Mar 16, 2009
• 882 views

e:\eu_master\bin\exwc.exe -i ..\include revget.ex 
Incorrect usage. 

Thanks Derek:
I'am using the TortoiseSVN Client.
SubVersion is a complete SubVersion System that is why I don't
have it on my XP Home system.

I don't think it is a good idea to require a user
to have SubVersion on their system to build the Euphoria
binaries.
I hope you can fix the code so svnversion.exe is not needed.

7. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Mar 17, 2009
• 919 views

We already do this. Actually, if we can't find svnversion, we try to figure out what the version is without it, and then only write unknown if we can't figure it out.

In fact, we originally didn't bother calling svnversion. That was added later, and it is not required.

However, since it is causing problems, maybe we should avoid calling svnversion altogether?

9. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by bernie Mar 17, 2009
• 872 views

Could someone explain to me why it is necessary to go through
all the complication to get the SVN number for building a source.

Why can't a simple text file that is updated each time
an addition to the source is committed to the repository

Then when the source is download or updated by a user
this text file will always contain the latest SVN version number
that can be simply read during the end user's compile.

The SVN version should be handle at the repository at the
commit time even if extra steps are required by the developer's
commit NOT during the end users compile.

11. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Mar 17, 2009
• 880 views

It is actually possible to do this, fully automated, with CVS. I couldn't find an SVN analogue, but perhaps someone with more SVN experience will be able to chip in.

13. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Mar 17, 2009
• 885 views

SVN does not have the concept text replacements of $Id$ and friends.

Jeremy

15. Re: VER 4.0 build error

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Mar 17, 2009
• 895 views

Looking at the OP, you are wrong.


I'll repeat, WRONG.
The problem is a bug in the way -i is handled. Derek was going to work on fixing this. But this has nothing to do with svnversion.exe

I'm not aware of a way to run an automated script on the client side to do that (and even if it was possible, it'd be an increase in the burden of becoming a dev).

And as Jeremy pointed out, we can't add the hook to the server side (where it'd a) be a lot easier to do and b) work much better than either your proposed system or the current system) because we lack permission to do so.