search

swcarpentry / DEPRECATED-bc

DEPRECATED: This repository is now frozen - please see individual lesson repositories.
Other
299 stars 383 forks source link

Added instructions to _includes/setup.html on how to install Make. #533

Closed mikej888 closed 8 years ago

wking commented 10 years ago

On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 07:46:47AM -0700, mikej888 wrote:

  • Added Make instructions to _includes/setup.html

Can't we just have folks install msysGit from the start, instead of installing the more limited Git for Windows? I looked at https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/releases/tag/Git-1.9.2-preview20140411 anyway, and msysgit-Git-1.9.2-preview20140411.tar.gz certainly has make.exe.

mikej888 commented 10 years ago

I can't see make.exe anywhere within Git-1.9.2-preview20140411.exe once unpacked and installed.

I'd be concerned about having attendees install the full mysysGit as it's a hefty 2GB versus 250MB, is missing wget, and is billed as "for developers who want to contribute by writing code for Git for Windows" rather than Windows users who want to use Git.

wking commented 10 years ago

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:05:22AM -0700, mikej888 wrote:

I can't see make.exe anywhere within Git-1.9.2-preview20140411.exe once unpacked and installed.

Ah, maybe the “Git for Windows” installers are trimmed back down, and not just an alternatively packagaged version of the source tarball?

I'd be concerned about having attendees install the full mysysGit as it's a hefty 2GB versus 250MB,

Disk space is cheap, and all that extra stuff is build dependencies. The stuff that Git needs to build is usually good stuff ;).

is missing wget,

It has curl, so missing wget is not critical.

and is billed as "for developers who want to contribute by writing code for Git for Windows" rather than Windows users who want to use Git.

I'd read that as “for developers who want to compile stuff using Make, Perl, C, and other *nix-y stuff”, which sounds like a fair match for our students. Of course, cherry-picking the stuff we actually need for a given boot camp would be nice, but unless we want to package it up for folks on a per-workshop level, I think it's easier to just have them install the whole thing.

gvwilson commented 10 years ago

Happy to include these instructions, but:

  1. Should we put a copy of make.exe in http://files.software-carpentry.org so that we have a more memorable (and more stable) URL?
  2. Can we do that for Mac OS X as well? (Is it legal, and would its dependencies reliably resolve?) I'd like to avoid requiring people to download XCode if possible.
wking commented 10 years ago

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 03:46:09PM -0700, Greg Wilson wrote:

  1. Should we put a copy of make.exe in http://files.software-carpentry.org so that we have a more memorable (and more stable) URL?
  2. Can we do that for Mac OS X as well? (Is it legal, and would its dependencies reliably resolve?) I'd like to avoid requiring people to download XCode if possible.

I don't think we can do either legally without also distributing the source for GNU Make (which is under the GPLv3+ 1). I'm skeptical that the approach taken by msysGit is legal. Distributing the source wouldn't be hard, but we'd need to compile it ourselves (since msysGit doesn't link to the source they used) or find someone else who is distributing binaries along with their sources.

I think getting into the binary-packaging world ourselves isn't going to be a high-impact approach though. If there isn't anybody else already providing binaries that we can point folks to, we're probably going about things the wrong way ;).

mikej888 commented 10 years ago

I aqree with avoiding getting into building binaries that are available elsewhere.

Disk space is cheap but 2GB is still a big ask - attendees laptops can be quite old and limited in terms of space. I'd be more open to mysysGit if it was explicitly promoted as a Linuxy software development environment (rather than an environment for Git developers that has some useful Linuxy tools included). Could we not give them the choice and explain the trade-off?

mikej888 commented 10 years ago

About Mac and XCode, it appears there is a Command Line Tools for XCode bundle which contains make and other useful tools, which is now distributed separately from XCode:

Or see notes in

wking commented 10 years ago

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:22:01AM -0700, mikej888 wrote:

I'd be more open to mysysGit if it was explicitly promoted as a Linuxy software development environment (rather than an environment for Git developers that has some useful Linuxy tools included).

Perhaps we can try bumping our dependency up to MSYS itself 1? That's a generic GNU-for-Windows packaging system 2, but it probably won't play nicely with msysGit 3. There has been work on pulling MSYS and a Git build back together 4, but I don't know how reliable it is yet.

Could we not give them the choice and explain the trade-off?

You can ask, but my impression is that the both the MSYS and msysGit developers are completly swamped 3, and won't be receptive to requests for broader scoping.

In the end, swapping out the whole kernel (with it's UNIX-derived APIs) for Windows' native APIs is a tough task, and folks who want to use nix software seem to prefer just using a nix kernel ;). Personally I think it would be more productive to focus on bootable SWC media if we want students to have an environment they can take home with them 5.

mikej888 commented 10 years ago

Could we not give them the choice and explain the trade-off? You can ask, but my impression is that the both the MSYS and msysGit developers are completly swamped [3], and won't be receptive to requests for broader scoping.

Sorry, I meant give boot camp attendees the choice of the two downloads so they can choose whether to opt for two downloads (Git for Windows + Make) or the one much larger one.

Personally I think it would be more productive to focus on bootable SWC media if we want students to have an environment they can take home with them [5].

That sounds good.

wking commented 10 years ago

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:51:48AM -0700, mikej888 wrote:

Sorry, I meant give boot camp attendees the choice of the two downloads so they can choose whether to opt for two downloads (Git for Windows + Make) or the one much larger one.

Ah. If we really want Make and can't require msysGit, it would be easy to add to add a make.exe download to our swc-windows-installer.py. I just don't want to grow that script when we are able to offload maintenance onto someone outside of SWC ;).

Personally I think it would be more productive to focus on bootable SWC media if we want students to have an environment they can take home with them [5].

That sounds good.

If you'd actually use something like this, I'll build a more current ISO for you. The last time I proposed this approach, the response was “meh” ;). Although as our suggested software enviroment gets more complicated (KDiff3? #527), maybe we're approaching the tipping point where some folks are ready to drop support for native Windows installs. In that case, I prefer my ISOs to virtual machines for folks with older hardware.

wking commented 9 years ago

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:57:26AM -0700, Greg Wilson wrote:

Assigned #533 to @wking.

Since swcarpentry/windows-installer#21 the installed installs Make. We just need to cut a new release of the installer.

gvwilson commented 9 years ago

Thanks - please go ahead and cut, then close this ticket. Much appreciated, G

wking commented 9 years ago

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:49:41AM -0700, Greg Wilson wrote:

Thanks - please go ahead and cut, then close this ticket.

@ethanwhite has the Windows machine and Inno Setup installer needed to build the new version. See swcarpentry/windows-installer#12. We need:

  1. A pre-release mail to discuss@ for anyone interested in beta-testing the Python script.
  2. A merge from python → master
  3. Tagging that merge as v0.2
  4. Building the v0.2 installer with Inno Setup
  5. Pushing the built installer to the windows-installer releases
  6. Pushing the build installer to files.software-carpentry.org
  7. A post-release mail to discuss@

The new Make install is the only significant change since v0.1.

ethanwhite commented 9 years ago

@wking If you'll take 1-3 and 7, I'll take 4-6.

wking commented 9 years ago

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:20:24AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:

  1. A pre-release mail to discuss@ for anyone interested in beta-testing the Python script.

Done 1. I'll wait the week or two mentioned in that email before moving on to step 2.

wking commented 9 years ago

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:20:24AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:

  1. A merge from python → master
  2. Tagging that merge as v0.2

The mailing list message has cooked long enough (and turned up swcarpentry/windows-installer#23). I've just completed these two steps, so it's up to @ethanwhite to handle 4–6:

  1. Building the v0.2 installer with Inno Setup
  2. Pushing the built installer to the windows-installer releases
  3. Pushing the build installer to files.software-carpentry.org

Let me know when that's done and I'll do 7:

  1. A post-release mail to discuss@
wking commented 9 years ago

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:41:42AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:

I've just completed these two steps, so it's up to @ethanwhite to handle 4–6:

Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:20:24AM -0700, W. Trevor King:

  1. Building the v0.2 installer with Inno Setup
  2. Pushing the built installer to the windows-installer releases
  3. Pushing the build installer to files.software-carpentry.org

Let me know when that's done and I'll do 7:

  1. A post-release mail to discuss@

@ethanwhite? This is a one-week bump, let me know if you prefer a different frequency ;).

ethanwhite commented 9 years ago

Apologies for the delay (it's been quite the semester).

4 and 5 are now done and @gvwilson has been asked with 6.

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM, W. Trevor King notifications@github.com wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:41:42AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:

I've just completed these two steps, so it's up to @ethanwhite to handle 4–6:

Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:20:24AM -0700, W. Trevor King:

  1. Building the v0.2 installer with Inno Setup
  2. Pushing the built installer to the windows-installer releases
  3. Pushing the build installer to files.software-carpentry.org

Let me know when that's done and I'll do 7:

  1. A post-release mail to discuss@

@ethanwhite? This is a one-week bump, let me know if you prefer a different frequency ;).

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/swcarpentry/bc/pull/533#issuecomment-60495018.

wking commented 9 years ago

On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:05:01PM -0700, Ethan White wrote:

Apologies for the delay (it's been quite the semester).

No worries ;). I'll try to remember to bump AppVersion before tagging the master branch next time :p.

ethanwhite commented 9 years ago
  1. has now been completed to well, so go ahead and make the announcement.

Ethan

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 1:10 PM, W. Trevor King notifications@github.com wrote:

On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:05:01PM -0700, Ethan White wrote:

Apologies for the delay (it's been quite the semester).

No worries ;). I'll try to remember to bump AppVersion before tagging the master branch next time :p.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/swcarpentry/bc/pull/533#issuecomment-61379423.

wking commented 9 years ago

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 12:13:06PM -0800, Ethan White wrote:

  1. has now been completed to well, so go ahead and make the announcement.

Done 1.

gvwilson commented 8 years ago

Relocate to the new Make lesson?