Обсуждение: Problem trying to compile PgAdmin

Hi fellow hackers

Just checked out pgAdmin from GIT and tried to compile it in Visual
Studio 2010. I’m getting this error:

Error    1    error MSB3721: The command
"C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\xtra\png2c\Debug\png2c.exe"
"C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\pgadmin\include\images\aggregate.png"
"C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\pgadmin\include\images\aggregate.pngc" exited
with code 1.    C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\pgAdmin3.targets    45    6    pgAdmin3

The paths are correct; this is where I checked it out to. I can run the
offending command on the command-line and it just outputs nothing.

Any help?

Thanks!
Timwi

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Arne Heizmann <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hi fellow hackers
>
> Just checked out pgAdmin from GIT and tried to compile it in Visual Studio
> 2010. I’m getting this error:
>
> Error   1       error MSB3721: The command
> "C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\xtra\png2c\Debug\png2c.exe"
> "C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\pgadmin\include\images\aggregate.png"
> "C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\pgadmin\include\images\aggregate.pngc" exited with
> code 1.    C:\c\PgAdmin\pgadmin3\pgAdmin3.targets  45      6       pgAdmin3
>
> The paths are correct; this is where I checked it out to. I can run the
> offending command on the command-line and it just outputs nothing.
>
> Any help?

Try VC++ 2008. We haven't yet updated to 2010.


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 26/05/2011 01:09, Dave Page wrote:
> Try VC++ 2008. We haven't yet updated to 2010.

So when are you going to update? This is not very helpful.

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 26/05/2011 01:09, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> Try VC++ 2008. We haven't yet updated to 2010.
>
> So when are you going to update? This is not very helpful.

Not at least until we start working on the next release. Upgrading is
not trivial, as it affects a number of build servers, and has knock-on
effects on installers and build frameworks used for PostgreSQL. Plus,
we don't actually gain much from doing so, other than using up disk
space.


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 27/05/2011 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Timwi<timwi@gmx.net>  wrote:
>> On 26/05/2011 01:09, Dave Page wrote:
>>>
>>> Try VC++ 2008. We haven't yet updated to 2010.
>>
>> So when are you going to update? This is not very helpful.
>
> Not at least until we start working on the next release. Upgrading is
> not trivial, as it affects a number of build servers, and has knock-on
> effects on installers and build frameworks used for PostgreSQL. Plus,
> we don't actually gain much from doing so, other than using up disk
> space.

All the VS 2010 developers are not much of a gain? If you say so...

But anyway, I received a private message from someone who is helpfully
trying to get it to compile. Let’s see how it goes.

Timwi

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Timwi<timwi@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/05/2011 01:09, Dave Page wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Try VC++ 2008. We haven't yet updated to 2010.
>>>
>>> So when are you going to update? This is not very helpful.
>>
>> Not at least until we start working on the next release. Upgrading is
>> not trivial, as it affects a number of build servers, and has knock-on
>> effects on installers and build frameworks used for PostgreSQL. Plus,
>> we don't actually gain much from doing so, other than using up disk
>> space.
>
> All the VS 2010 developers are not much of a gain? If you say so...

VS 2010 users are more than capable of using 2008 as well I imagine.
The point is that there is no *technical* benefit for us, but there is
a lot of work involved in updating, which at the moment is time we can
better spend on other tasks.

> But anyway, I received a private message from someone who is helpfully
> trying to get it to compile. Let’s see how it goes.

Well I wish you good luck, but you asked what to do about the error
and I told you the likely cause and fix. I'm sorry if you don't find
that helpful.


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 27/05/2011 16:16, Dave Page wrote:
>> All the VS 2010 developers are not much of a gain? If you say so...
>
> VS 2010 users are more than capable of using 2008 as well I imagine.

I tried to offer my help with this project. I already had to jump
through two hoops (one to download git and get the damn thing to check
out the files, and two to post on this mailing list). Everyone has a
point at which they stop jumping through hoops for you because it’s not
worth it for them. At that point, you lose the contribution they would
have made. Is that what you want?

> Well I wish you good luck, but you asked what to do about the error
> and I told you the likely cause and fix.

Except that everyone else will similarly have to post to the mailing
list and jump through the same hoops as I. A “fix” is something that
removes the hoop.

Timwi

Le 05/27/2011 05:32 PM, Timwi a écrit :
> On 27/05/2011 16:16, Dave Page wrote:
>>> All the VS 2010 developers are not much of a gain? If you say so...
>>
>> VS 2010 users are more than capable of using 2008 as well I imagine.
>
> I tried to offer my help with this project. I already had to jump
> through two hoops (one to download git and get the damn thing to check
> out the files, and two to post on this mailing list). Everyone has a
> point at which they stop jumping through hoops for you because it’s not
> worth it for them. At that point, you lose the contribution they would
> have made. Is that what you want?
>

Nope. But everyone has a limited time to work on this project. There are
bugs we need to work on, and this has the priority. Not VS2010.

>> Well I wish you good luck, but you asked what to do about the error
>> and I told you the likely cause and fix.
>
> Except that everyone else will similarly have to post to the mailing
> list and jump through the same hoops as I. A “fix” is something that
> removes the hoop.
>

Sure. So you're welcome to provide a patch to bring us to VS2010.


--
Guillaume
 http://www.postgresql.fr
 http://dalibo.com

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 16:16, Dave Page wrote:
>>>
>>> All the VS 2010 developers are not much of a gain? If you say so...
>>
>> VS 2010 users are more than capable of using 2008 as well I imagine.
>
> I tried to offer my help with this project. I already had to jump through
> two hoops (one to download git and get the damn thing to check out the
> files, and two to post on this mailing list). Everyone has a point at which
> they stop jumping through hoops for you because it’s not worth it for them.
> At that point, you lose the contribution they would have made. Is that what
> you want?

Using an extremely popular source control system is a hoop to jump through?

>> Well I wish you good luck, but you asked what to do about the error
>> and I told you the likely cause and fix.
>
> Except that everyone else will similarly have to post to the mailing list
> and jump through the same hoops as I. A “fix” is something that removes the
> hoop.

By that reasoning I should also jump through hoops and spend my time
making the code compile in any random compiler that people might want
to use.

The reality is, upgrading the compiler used by the project has serious
consequences on the project that you obviously don't fully understand.
Will we upgrade somewhen? Yes. Will we offer assistance to people who
want to spend their time on making other compilers work? Yes. What we
won't do is jump through hoops to make things work in a new
environment just because someone doesn't want to use what is
recommended.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 16:47, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> Using an extremely popular source control system is a hoop to jump
>> through?
>
> Yes. Mostly because it is crap and unusable (its popularity has no effect on
> that), but also because even the best source-control system is a bigger hoop
> than a simple “download source zipped” link. Hosting the code on github
> would give you that for free and you can still use your beloved
> source-control system...

Wow. Just wow.

>> Will we offer assistance to people who want to spend their time on
>> making other compilers work? Yes.
>
> Like I said, I did get a message from someone who offered assistence. But
> that message didn’t come from you. From you I got only “Try VC++ 2008.”

Well you were asking how to compile the code, not how to add support
for a new compiler.

> I’ll stop discussing this now because it’s pointless.

Agreed.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 27/05/2011 19:35, Dave Page wrote:
> Wow. Just wow.

Was the idea of using github so ingenious that it compromised your
ability to formulate meaningful, coherent sentences? :)

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 19:35, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> Wow. Just wow.
>
> Was the idea of using github so ingenious that it compromised your ability
> to formulate meaningful, coherent sentences? :)

I do use github. It was more the fact that you seem to consider source
control to be a hinderance and something to work around rather than an
essential part of a sound development process.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 20:23, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> I do use github. It was more the fact that you seem to consider source
>> control to be a hinderance and something to work around rather than an
>> essential part of a sound development process.
>
> It’s an essential part of the development process, but it is certainly a
> hindrance for people (like me) who just want to get the source and not
> really get involved with the development process. Why do you think the vast
> majority of open-source projects do offer the source as a downloadable zip?
> I think it’s because they realise they benefit a lot from making it as easy
> as absolutely possible for the drive-by contributor to suggest a small but
> desirable change without having to fully dive into the project. Such
> passers-by greatly outnumber the regular contributors.

But we do offer source downloads. We don't currently have snapshot
tarballs for a variety of reasons (one of which was that noone ever
used them), but we most certainly have tarballs available for all our
release, beta and rc versions. They're not exactly hidden either - go
to the website, click "Download" and then click "Source Code".

> Additionally, even among people who are (like me) very familiar with
> multiple source-control systems, the set of people who are familiar with a
> *specific* system are in a minority compared to the people who aren’t. You
> cannot expect everyone to know (much less /like/) everything, especially not
> if it’s something as arcane and amateurishly undesigned like git.

That is why we have simple instructions on the website.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 27/05/2011 23:21, Dave Page wrote:
> But we do offer source downloads.

Indeed. I must have missed that earlier... probably because I clicked on
“Development” because that is indeed what I was thinking of doing. Maybe
there should be a link in the Development section that indicates that
the source can be downloaded in the Download section.

> That is why we have simple instructions on the website.

Hahaha... “simple instructions” :-D. All it says is:

“Under Windows, we recommend using TortoiseGIT, which is free software.”

And that’s it. Nice “simple instructions” there. All I could get
TortoiseGIT to do was output completely useless messages like...

    http://bit.ly/k4t9BB
    http://bit.ly/jLMqI6
    http://bit.ly/m7LaH5

So I tried using this “MSysGit” instead, which admittedly finally did
the job, but only by installing a whole frickin’ Linux-like shell in
which it could run. I managed to check out the pgAdmin source with that,
but once I exited that shell, I can now no longer find any way to bring
it back — there is a batch file in its installation directory, but that
only opens another cmd.exe window. Very useful.

Trying to use git.exe itself directly just gives this useless error:

    http://bit.ly/jPRHTh

One would have thought that installing a program with all its
dependencies should be a solved problem by now. Clearly git has not
quite arrived in the 21st century yet.

Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying any of this is your fault :).
But it *is* a problem and it *does* pose a lot of hoops to jump through.

Timwi

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Timwi <timwi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hahaha... “simple instructions” :-D. All it says is:
>
> “Under Windows, we recommend using TortoiseGIT, which is free software.”
>
> And that’s it. Nice “simple instructions” there.

We're not reproducing the helpfile for another GUI app. We do however,
also include instructions on that same page for checking out a tree
using the command line tools as most *nix users would use, and as can
be used with Msysgit. It's not quite the one-liner you imply.

> So I tried using this “MSysGit” instead, which admittedly finally did the
> job, but only by installing a whole frickin’ Linux-like shell in which it
> could run. I managed to check out the pgAdmin source with that, but once I
> exited that shell, I can now no longer find any way to bring it back — there
> is a batch file in its installation directory, but that only opens another
> cmd.exe window. Very useful.
>
> Trying to use git.exe itself directly just gives this useless error:
>
>        http://bit.ly/jPRHTh
>
> One would have thought that installing a program with all its dependencies
> should be a solved problem by now. Clearly git has not quite arrived in the
> 21st century yet.
>
> Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying any of this is your fault :). But
> it *is* a problem and it *does* pose a lot of hoops to jump through.

I've never had any problems like that with msysgit. It's worked well
for me on multiple XP and Windows 7 machines, in the standard cmd.exe
shell, just using a straightforward installation. I've never heard of
any of our other contributors having problems either. Perhaps there's
something unusual about your machine?

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company