Re: [Monotone-devel] Mingw 64 bit build

[Markus Wanner]

Stephen,

On 05/04/2014 03:48 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
> Done in nvm.cleanup-warnings.

Cool, thanks. I'll have another look, soon.

> I think we should; there's nothing worse than trying to follow some
> install instructions only to discover there is some crucial bit of
> information missing.

Yes, there is something worse than missing parts: Wrong parts. And
out-dated stuff is pretty darn close to be wrong.

The MinGW instructions prior to the recent release were helpful to some
extent, but a lot of it was out-dated. I had to figure which parts still
apply and which not. Granted, I didn't use the versions indicated in the
doc. I wanted newer stuff. And I wish I had a more general, less verbose
guide.

Put another way: I just don't think we can keep up install instructions
with that much detail for every of at least three different windoze
build environments.

> For example, are the Botan args to configure necessary on Debian?

Depends on which version of Botan you want to compile against. Maybe you
even want to compile against a self-compiled one in a custom location.
We cannot possible cover all variants - nor should we.

> I just
> assume so (because they are required on cygwin and msys2), but I didn't
> check. If I had not done the msys2 install first, I would not have known
> to use them, and would have wasted time figuring that out for Debian.

Configure tells you pretty clearly if it found what it needs or what's
missing, if it didn't. Reading through pages of outdated options on how
I don't want to do it would certainly waste much more time for me, thanks.

> On the other hand, a large part of INSTALL_windows_msys2_64.txt talks
> about how to install msys2. That sort of instruction is not required for
> Debian and other Linux distros,

Huh? If that needs explanation, please go help the mingw or msys2
project. The monotone source tree clearly is the wrong place to put that
documentation, as most users in need for it won't find it, there.

> Notice that a significant portion of the messages we've exchanged are
> about "what tools are you using?". Having identical tool setups is
> essential to tracking down bugs.

I don't think we're in the position to enforce a tool chain on your
users. The best we can do is make monotone easy to compile on most
platforms.

Instead of a lengthy document, why not bundle the entire set of tools
required to build monotone in a zip file ready to delpoy? That would
save the tedious work of accurately following 100 lines of boring
instructions.

> Why?
> 
> That will make it harder to follow, which means more likely to get it
> wrong.

No, a more concise variant without exact commands or version numbers
(which I neither want nor find anymore) would have been way easier to
follow for me. Heck, I'm not a script interpreter.

> I don't understand the rationale for moving stuff to the wiki. That's
> harder to edit, and it won't be kept up to date. 

Wikis hard to edit? Do we use the same Internet?

To me, the existing instructions felt more like a protocol of your
experience getting monotone to compile from source on Windows. That's
fine and certainly helpful to some point. But the source tree isn't the
right place for a protocol, IMO.

>> As it stands, an average Windows user would need a guide on how to
>> choose the correct INSTALL_windows_* file.
> 
> We are not addressing the average Windows user - that's my mom and
> siblings, who read email but never compile anything.

Okay. Point taken. Who are we writing this for? The average Windows
developer?

> We are addressing people who want to compile monotone. That's me and
> you and a few others. I find these instructions necessary, and I'm doing
> the work of maintaining them; what's the downside?

If you're really going to maintain all of those multiple variants, I can
live with it. I still want the rough guide on how to compile if I don't
follow your instructions line by line.

Thanks for writing up something for INSTALL, I'll review.

Regards

Markus Wanner