gmane.network.instant-messaging.adium.devel

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Thijs Alkemade — 2012-05-21T20:31:02

Great news, thanks a lot Evan!

Thijs

On 21 mei 2012, at 22:29, Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D. wrote:

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D. — 2012-05-21T20:29:18

I took the much less technically satisfying but simpler route and talked to Damien at Network Redux today. :)  I suggested that he mail the Mac Mini to me and I'd take care of the upgrade; he counter suggested that he could have one of the engineers perform the upgrade for us. Sold.

-Evan  


On Friday, May 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Evan Kinney wrote:

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Evan Kinney — 2012-05-18T05:19:22

Okay, so this *would* have worked fine, except for that little bit I forgot where there's no way to get EFI to use a static IP for TFTP without hacking your way into the EFI shell with rEFIt or something.

Then I was just going to resize the root partition so I could stick the image there and reboot… but then I remembered that you couldn't non-destructively resize HFS+ until 10.6.

So, yeah. Here we are. Any other ideas? I'm nowhere near Portland. :)

I did have another idea, though. VMware's free version of ESXi supports OS X as a guest as of v5. I have it running in production at work on some Xserves to host build nodes. I've never tried running it on a Mini, though. All the drivers seem to be there to support everything. I have a 2,1 model laying around somewhere, I'm sure; I'll see what I can make happen. Considering the lack of console access to the hardware, I'd think this would be a pretty good solution for platforms that are just kept around for regression testing and whatnot.

On the other hand, R

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Evan Schoenberg — 2012-05-17T12:39:08

Evan,

I approve of your naming!

Thanks for your awesome debugging work with the 1.5b1 10.6 dependency issues.

If you'll please email me your public key I'll get you added for access to Smew. Muscovy's not running server, though if that would be helpful for this and other purposes we can certainly upgrade it, no problem.

Best,
Evan


On May 17, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Evan Kinney <Evan.Kinney-LVvIjLR0h5w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Evan Kinney — 2012-05-17T12:08:48

I have a NetBoot image I created a while ago that will do an in-place upgrade of 10.5 to 10.6.8 through a bit of hackery and magic with OSUpgrade.pkg.

Is Muscovy running Server? It's fine if it's not; I have a NetBoot setup I can use at my house if need be. "bless" has a handy --netboot option that lets you point to any ABDP server and not rely on multicast discovery. That + --nextonly == unattended upgrade.

Also, I don't think I ever properly introduced myself: hi, I'm Evan.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 16, 2012, at 4:17 PM, "Evan Schoenberg" <evan-KCuJi2Xv+Ok< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Evan Schoenberg — 2012-05-16T20:17:09

Agreed. I would however like to have access to a share 10.6 testing device; smew is useless to us on 10.5. 

-Evan



On May 16, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Colin Barrett <colin-5TsZuNwi2RFtRjg9tI8giVaTQe2KTcn/< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Colin Barrett — 2012-05-16T17:34:21

Not up to date on what y'all have tried but switching to 10.6 seems like an absolute last resort. I mean, 10.8 will come out one day, and Xcode 3 isn't going to be viable to build 10.7/10.8 apps. Gotta figure this stuff out at some point, eh?

-Colin (via thumbs)

On May 16, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Thijs Alkemade <thijsalkemade-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Updating Muscovy to 10.7

Thijs Alkemade — 2012-05-16T15:44:24

Hey all,

The dependencies for Adium 1.5.1b1 were pretty screwed up. IRC was
broken because of what I can only pin down to not doing a clean build,
libintl apparently has a problem with building for 10.6 on 10.7 with
Xcode 4.3 [1].

In short, it is pretty much required to do a full clean build every
time and it seems every new release of Xcode breaks something else. I
think it would be a lot safer to go back to Xcode 3 on 10.6.8 (as long
as 10.6.8 is our target), so we always have the same compiler and
SDKs. I have an old Macbook which is still on 10.6.8, but it's in
pretty bad shape. So I'd much rather have one of the build machines
build the dependencies, but that would need a machine with 10.6.8 (and
we now only have Smew on 10.5.8 and Muscovy on 10.7.4). Maybe this
will also make it easy to distribute the dSYMs.

Adrian says Smew can't be upgraded remotely. Is there another way?
Could someone visit the datacenter? Can we ask NetworkRedux?

Regards,
Thijs

[1] http://trac.adium.im/ticket/15996#comment:16

Adium 1.5.1b1 released

Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D. — 2012-05-13T22:48:10

Happy Sunday!

Adium 1.5.1b1 is now live on both beta.adium.im and via Sparkle.  

It is signed with our authorized Apple Developer ID certificate and so should pass GateKeeper's scrutiny.  Libpurple 2.10.4 is also included.

I'd like to release this after a brief beta period of a week or so, so please report any problems, especially as relate to code signing or connectivity, you run into.

Best,
Evan

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Adrian Godoroja — 2012-05-13T14:20:23

Hi,

FriBidi is the same ver. as before, just removed the separate project and included the compiled framework.

- Adrian.

On May 13, 2012, at 12:03, Robert Vehse wrote:

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Robert Vehse — 2012-05-13T09:03:08

Am 13.05.2012 um 04:33 schrieb Evan Schoenberg:


No problem :)


Cool! I hope the updated versions of FriBidi and ShortcutRecorder don't cause any issues.

Cheers,
Robbie

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D. — 2012-05-13T05:48:57


On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Robert Vehse wrote:


Thank God for a decent source control system. That was pretty painless. I branched from a near-following revision (4768) as we had some compilation fixes.

Here's what I did, for the record:
=> hg up -r 4768; hg branch adium-1.5.1; hg transplant 4795 4806 4807 4808 4809 4810 4811; hg push

-Evan

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Evan Schoenberg — 2012-05-13T02:33:08




On May 12, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Eric Richie <eric-KCuJi2Xv+Ok< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:



Sorry, Robbie; I misunderstood your email. I agree; let's revert that versioning and make a historical branch   for 1.5.1. 

-Evan

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Eric Richie — 2012-05-13T01:09:33

On May 12, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Robert Vehse wrote:


The current trunk includes a *lot* of changes that aren't ready for release yet. (The prefs rework, etc.)

We should really go back and branch for 1.5 rather than building 1.5.1 from trunk.

-Eric

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Robert Vehse — 2012-05-13T01:04:07

Am 12.05.2012 um 00:59 schrieb Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D.:


I suggested a changeset to branch from. I see you just versioned Trunk as "1.5.1b1", I don't think we should include the changes after the aforementioned changeset.

-Robbie

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D. — 2012-05-11T22:59:00

Where should 1.5.1 be built from? I see that trunk currently reports as 1.6hg.  

I've made the minimum needed change to the codesign invocation.   (http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/c5ac17ab998d)

I've then changed it to signing the whole app bundle, which is what I believe Apple recommends. (http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/f8c02c748e9a)
 Was there a specific reason we were signing just the binary itself?

-Evan


On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Eric Richie wrote:

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Eric Richie — 2012-05-09T14:42:02


That looks to be about as good a place as any.

-Eric

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Robert Vehse — 2012-05-08T12:47:21

Am 07.05.2012 um 21:13 schrieb Evan Schoenberg:


Is http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/c494bae9da94 a good point to branch from?

- Robbie

Time for plugin approval

Jan Murin — 2012-05-08T10:57:44

Hi all,

I would like to ask if my pending plugin is OK or how long does it take to approve it?


Thanks,
Honza

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Evan Schoenberg — 2012-05-07T19:13:45

On May 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Eric Richie <eric-KCuJi2Xv+Ok< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:


Yup. I'll take care of it. 

-Evan

Re: Adium 1.5.1

Eric Richie — 2012-05-07T18:38:24

Nope. Let's do it.

Are you going to be looking into the parameters?

-Eric