[Ann] BodyBuilder packaging suite

> Hi all,
>
> I'm doing a 'slow kick-off' of the BodyBuilder project, meaning that  
> I'll be
> preparing the collaboration environment for this project over the coming
> weeks and that I intend to start development in earnest when I return  
> from
> Smalltalk Solutions.
>
> So today I have set up a wiki at
>   http://desk.org:8080/BodyBuilder
>
> If you (or your shop) has done any significant build automation on VW I  
> would
> love it if you created a page there with a short 'war story' on what you
> have, how you use it and snags encountered.
> Even if you don't intend to join the BodyBuilder project I would greatly
> appreciate it if you write up your experiences on the wiki so we can get  
> a
> feel for what is desired.
>
>
> A BodyBuilder developers mailing list has been available for almost a  
> year now
> but that has been idle until now. I intend to idle it for a couple of  
> days to
> come so you have opportunity to subscribe if you want to participate (or
> lurk) without missing the initial beats. Currently we have seven  
> subscribers
> to the list so there is plenty room for more participants without  
> turning it
> into a cacophony.
> You can subscribe at
>   http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodybuilder-development
>
>
> The BodyBuilder home page at
>   http://bodybuilder.sourceforge.net/
> has the executive overview describing the project. One thing leaps at  
> you from
> that page: there is no logo yet. So if you don't want to help developing
> BodyBuilder your chance to put a significant mark on the project lies in
> creating a logo for it :-)
>
>
> At Smalltalk Solutions there will be a 'packaging BOF' session that I'll
> attend. I have no idea when or where exactly that will be held but I  
> suspect
> Charles Monteiro will be the one giving us more info on this in due time.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Reinout
> -------

>well gee, I guess I will :)
>
>Here is what I have tried so far. I emailed the conference people i.e. the  
>Linux/Network World organizers, they replied that it was such a great idea  
>and then forwarded the email to the STIC side organizers. Have not heard  
>from them. I think it has been a couple of weeks. In my request I had  
>mentioned that we were looking for support as far a room and a projector.  
>I personally have strategies/issues to share and so a projector would be  
>great. Perhaps getting the spare rooms is not that easy?
>
>I also had mentioned in a post to this group that anybody interested to  
>please send me an email in case we have to do things "on the fly" and  
>folks need to be notified last minute etc.
>
>Nobody emailed me but some people had mentioned that they were interested  
>i.e. via their posts. So far this is whom I know to be probably interested  
>( in no particular order )and understand will be attending StS 2006:
>
>1. me or I
>2. Michael Lucas-Smith
>3. Travis Griggs
>4. Reinout Heeck
>5. Carl Gundel
>6. Bruce Badger
>7. hopefully somebody from Cincom
>8. the forgotten ones
>
>
>so the way I figure things can work out this way:
>
>1. STIC might get back to us very soon and say "your room is ### and its  
>available at 5PM" , great we would just post this here on this list  
>possibly c.l.s.
>2. If we can't get a room, would you all be into talking about this at a  
>pub/cafe? In that case we possibly could have some handouts etc. If we do  
>that I need some contact info which may require the hotel one is staying  
>at, not sure if we can count on cell phones working up there, not that  
>Canada does not have infrastructure of course ( must be politically  
>sensitive) but I can't get Verizon to work in up state NY :)
>
>Anyhow, don't mind helping with the leg work but I need some feedback and  
>the most important one at the moment would be from a STIC person.
>
>-Charles
>
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:10:05 -0400, Reinout Heeck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm doing a 'slow kick-off' of the BodyBuilder project, meaning that  
>>I'll be
>>preparing the collaboration environment for this project over the coming
>>weeks and that I intend to start development in earnest when I return  
>>from
>>Smalltalk Solutions.
>>
>>So today I have set up a wiki at
>>  http://desk.org:8080/BodyBuilder
>>
>>If you (or your shop) has done any significant build automation on VW I  
>>would
>>love it if you created a page there with a short 'war story' on what you
>>have, how you use it and snags encountered.
>>Even if you don't intend to join the BodyBuilder project I would greatly
>>appreciate it if you write up your experiences on the wiki so we can get  
>>a
>>feel for what is desired.
>>
>>
>>A BodyBuilder developers mailing list has been available for almost a  
>>year now
>>but that has been idle until now. I intend to idle it for a couple of  
>>days to
>>come so you have opportunity to subscribe if you want to participate (or
>>lurk) without missing the initial beats. Currently we have seven  
>>subscribers
>>to the list so there is plenty room for more participants without  
>>turning it
>>into a cacophony.
>>You can subscribe at
>>  http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodybuilder-development
>>
>>
>>The BodyBuilder home page at
>>  http://bodybuilder.sourceforge.net/
>>has the executive overview describing the project. One thing leaps at  
>>you from
>>that page: there is no logo yet. So if you don't want to help developing
>>BodyBuilder your chance to put a significant mark on the project lies in
>>creating a logo for it :-)
>>
>>
>>At Smalltalk Solutions there will be a 'packaging BOF' session that I'll
>>attend. I have no idea when or where exactly that will be held but I  
>>suspect
>>Charles Monteiro will be the one giving us more info on this in due time.
>>
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Reinout
>>-------
>
>
>
>--
>Charles A. Monteiro

>>( in no particular order )and understand will be attending StS 2006:
>>
>>1. me or I
>>2. Michael Lucas-Smith
>>3. Travis Griggs
>>4. Reinout Heeck
>>5. Carl Gundel
>>6. Bruce Badger
>>7. hopefully somebody from Cincom
>>8. the forgotten ones
>>
>>
>>so the way I figure things can work out this way:
>>
>>1. STIC might get back to us very soon and say "your room is ### and its  
>>available at 5PM" , great we would just post this here on this list  
>>possibly c.l.s.
>>2. If we can't get a room, would you all be into talking about this at a  
>>pub/cafe? In that case we possibly could have some handouts etc. If we do

>>the most important one at the moment would be from a STIC person.
>>
>>-Charles
>>
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:10:05 -0400, Reinout Heeck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I'm doing a 'slow kick-off' of the BodyBuilder project, meaning that  
>>>I'll be
>>>preparing the collaboration environment for this project over the coming
>>>weeks and that I intend to start development in earnest when I return  
>>>from
>>>Smalltalk Solutions.
>>>
>>>So today I have set up a wiki at
>>>  http://desk.org:8080/BodyBuilder
>>>
>>>If you (or your shop) has done any significant build automation on VW I  
>>>would
>>>love it if you created a page there with a short 'war story' on what you
>>>have, how you use it and snags encountered.
>>>Even if you don't intend to join the BodyBuilder project I would greatly
>>>appreciate it if you write up your experiences on the wiki so we can get

> Another idea a had for a BOF I had is for Pollock performance.  To get a
> few interested people together to do as Sam suggested and run the
> performance tools on Pollock to nail down some bottlenecks and maybe fix
> one or two of them.
>
> -Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
> http://www.libertybasic.com
> ...... Original Message .......
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:42:28 -0400 Alan Knight <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yes, where the words "STIC side organizers" here means me. The BOFs will
> be held in the regular session rooms, so I believe there ought to be a
> projector there. I'll check. They are held after show hours on the 25th  
> and
> 26th. Since you're the only person who's asked for a BOF so far, so as  
> far
> as I'm concerned, you can have your choice of time, although there's also
> the possibility of conflict with BOFs from other parts of the conference  
> to
> be checked. They suggest the 25th is better, as the 26th is the last day,
> and lots of people may be gone.
>>
>> At 09:53 AM 4/5/2006, Charles A. Monteiro wrote:
>>> well gee, I guess I will :)
>>>
>>> Here is what I have tried so far. I emailed the conference people i.e.
> the
>>> Linux/Network World organizers, they replied that it was such a great
> idea
>>> and then forwarded the email to the STIC side organizers. Have not  
>>> heard
>>> from them. I think it has been a couple of weeks. In my request I had
>>> mentioned that we were looking for support as far a room and a  
>>> projector.
>
>>> I personally have strategies/issues to share and so a projector would  
>>> be
>>> great. Perhaps getting the spare rooms is not that easy?
>>>
>>> I also had mentioned in a post to this group that anybody interested to
>>> please send me an email in case we have to do things "on the fly" and
>>> folks need to be notified last minute etc.
>>>
>>> Nobody emailed me but some people had mentioned that they were  
>>> interested
>
>>> i.e. via their posts. So far this is whom I know to be probably
> interested
>>> ( in no particular order )and understand will be attending StS 2006:
>>>
>>> 1. me or I
>>> 2. Michael Lucas-Smith
>>> 3. Travis Griggs
>>> 4. Reinout Heeck
>>> 5. Carl Gundel
>>> 6. Bruce Badger
>>> 7. hopefully somebody from Cincom
>>> 8. the forgotten ones
>>>
>>>
>>> so the way I figure things can work out this way:
>>>
>>> 1. STIC might get back to us very soon and say "your room is ### and  
>>> its
>>> available at 5PM" , great we would just post this here on this list
>>> possibly c.l.s.
>>> 2. If we can't get a room, would you all be into talking about this at  
>>> a
>>> pub/cafe? In that case we possibly could have some handouts etc. If we  
>>> do
>
>>> that I need some contact info which may require the hotel one is  
>>> staying
>>> at, not sure if we can count on cell phones working up there, not that
>>> Canada does not have infrastructure of course ( must be politically
>>> sensitive) but I can't get Verizon to work in up state NY :)
>>>
>>> Anyhow, don't mind helping with the leg work but I need some feedback  
>>> and
>
>>> the most important one at the moment would be from a STIC person.
>>>
>>> -Charles
>>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:10:05 -0400, Reinout Heeck <[hidden email]>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'm doing a 'slow kick-off' of the BodyBuilder project, meaning that
>>>> I'll be
>>>> preparing the collaboration environment for this project over the  
>>>> coming
>>>> weeks and that I intend to start development in earnest when I return
>>>> from
>>>> Smalltalk Solutions.
>>>>
>>>> So today I have set up a wiki at
>>>>  http://desk.org:8080/BodyBuilder
>>>>
>>>> If you (or your shop) has done any significant build automation on VW  
>>>> I
>>>> would
>>>> love it if you created a page there with a short 'war story' on what  
>>>> you
>>>> have, how you use it and snags encountered.
>>>> Even if you don't intend to join the BodyBuilder project I would  
>>>> greatly
>>>> appreciate it if you write up your experiences on the wiki so we can  
>>>> get
>
>>>> a
>>>> feel for what is desired.
>>>>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reinout Heeck [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:58 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Ann] BodyBuilder packaging suite
>
> Andre Schnoor wrote:
> > I think I could (theoretically) have a good deal of
> re-usable building
> > blocks to contribute for BodyBuilder (packaging, image obfuscation,
> > product variants, stripping, automated OS-transparent
> > ResHacking/app-building, parcel signing/encryption, compiling
> > distributable archives (zip, dmg, self-extracting installers, etc),
> > OS-transparent  batch/script management, secure installer framework,
> > etc, etc. Although some details are confidential by nature,
> most of the
> > framework is not mission criticial for my business.
>
> Splendid!
> I have permission to make public all of the code of Soops'
> PackageBot which
> implements a couple of the same building blocks (only tested
> on MsWindows so
> far).
> I intend to publish that somehow as you-are-on-your-own-ware,
> but haven't
> decided on the form yet (I dislike the idea of publishing
> abandonware on the
> pub repository). Additional things that could possibly be
> lifted from the
> PackageBot include parallel build scheduling (to fully load
> multi-cpu boxes),
> the OpenTalk St-St based client-server architecture and email-based
> reporting.
>
> > Creating and testing these tools took almost a year of work, just to
> > keep up with the "standards" VW doesn't yet support. These
> additional
> > expenses went on top of the actual product development
> (known as "the
> > productivity advantage").
>
> Yes, our experience is that developing building/packaging
> software in house is
> horrendously expensive. I see two reasons for this:
>
> -The development iteration cycle is *long* because doing a
> singular build may
> take more than half an hour, testing the queueing of a
> composite/parallel
> build takes well over an hour for some of our production cases.
>
> -Bugs appearing in the automated build s/w are disruptive to
> our entire team
> because our continuous integration needs to fall back to
> manual mode. In the
> case of deployment builds everything stops until the build
> system is up again
> since we stipulate that these must be mechanically repeatable
> in our shop.
>
> > If Cincom someday possibly choses to incorporate
> BodyBuilder to their
> > product (it's open source, so why not?), I think they
> should at least
> > make some commitment today, that, once they might decide to
> do so, the
> > significant contributors of the project will get some % off
> their VAR
> > rates or another appropriate compensation in "naturals".
> Doing all the
> > work for Cincom regarding one of the most wanted features ever for
> > nothing is not very motivating (and neither a clever
> business decision,
> > if one is already overloaded with commercial projects).
> Hopefully, the
> > NC community has more freedom and spare time to think differently.
>
> I have come to the conclusion that this is simply too
> expensive to be taken on
> by a single shop (been there, done that) and that
> collaboration is the only
> way to go forward, even for Cincom.
> I opted for open source not only because that is currently
> hip, but mainly to
> foster a singular build 'idiom' in the VW/St community so
> that we can help
> each other on this and other forums simply because we are
> referring to the
> same codebase. This project is firmly aimed at commercial use, but NC
> participation is just as welcome for this purpose of having
> the community
> gravitate to a single idiom.
>
> As far as Cincom is concerned I already have spoken with them
> and I have been
> told that they welcome this project and will put in effort
> where needed to
> make their libraries (Store, parcel loading etc) compatible
> with the needs of
> BodyBuilder. At this point in time I find that more important
> than attaching
> strings to this project by demanding compensation from Cincom.
>
> Our best bet is to have them eat our dogfood at some point in
> the future (ie.
> that they build the VW distributions with BodyBuilder).
>
>
> > Anyway, I'm willing to contribute to the design and share
> my experiences
> > in any case.
>
> Great :-)
>
> R
> -
>
>