openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:41:26 GMT

--- Ven 1/6/12, Rob Weir <> ha scritto:
> >
> > And computers need electricity, which is not free and
> > not available under a compatible license. I wish you
> > could keep focused or at least do an effort to
> > understand the issues so we can solve them.
> >
> Be nice.

Couldn't resist :-P. But I really think you can
bring more intelligent arguments to the discussion
if you focus more on solvig the issues and less on
making your point.

> > The tarball release must be consistent; we cannot hide
> > tarballs in SVN. Creating a directory with the
> Category-A
> > tarballs that form a base of the release along with
> the
> > base distribution is not really a problem. Some of
> them
> > are not available upstream anymore.
> >
> That is one possible technique.  But not the only
> one.  I'm a committer on another Apache project,
> the ODF Toolkit, and we do not include any of the
> dependencies in our release, not even other
> category-a ones.

Well I am a committer in the only big UNIX-like
distribution that is carrying Apache OpenOffice
nowadays. We would really like to use a source
distribution through ASF mirrors but since the ASF
doesn't provide one that works well we have been
rolling our own. Having a working source
distribution would help attract linux packagers,
I think.

Perhaps you happen to have data about how many
people are finding the current source
distribution tarballs useful?

> All of them are downloaded on the fly
> from a central repository.  That is the
> beauty of Maven.

I have personal experience packaging stuff
and this is undesirable. One of my ports
was rejected recently because its inconvenient
to have the buildbot depend on network access.


View raw message