openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject Re: Ready to setup release build machines?
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:02:24 GMT
On 21/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
> We REALLY REALLY NEED the CentOS5 32-bit and 64-bit VMS regardless of
> what we do for Windows.

I now have a repeatable process to create a CentOS 5 VM from scratch and 
building OpenOffice with it, meaning that I've successfully built 4.1.2 
on it. I also have a ~200 MBytes snapshot (compressed disk image) that 
provides a minimal CentOS 5 where one can in principle install all 
needed dependencies through a script and build OpenOffice.

I am still unsatisfied about some dependencies, namely the Perl 
dependencies and JUnit. I'd like to have a clean way for installing 
them, but unfortunately the default versions of other packages on CentOS 
5 are too old. Fore reference, does not work for me while 
the discussion in

is promising but incomplete. The idea is: install both the needed Perl 
modules and JUnit in the least obtrusive way.

For the current, successful, build I disabled JUnit and used workarounds 
to get around Perl modules needed by ./bootstrap by mirroring packages 
on a local server. Things might be better by switching to the new 
Java-based downloader by Damjan, but I am now building 4.1.2 and not 
trunk (so I might want to "backport" the new downloader).

> Conceptually, we COULD use the Win7 buildbot to
> spin out the binaries for each language, but, then there's that download
> them ALL and do the signing on some other box I was talking about earlier.

I can assure you that uploading dozens GBytes to SVN is more painful... 
but you will have the occasion to try it out and compare. Fact is, 
whatever one wants to do, if Windows is missing then we have the n-th 
incomplete solution.

> What do you need from us to get this going? Were you planning on doing
> the CentOS5 installations and then get back to us?

A reference VM is the first step, and this is quite close. In an ideal 
world, we would then ask Infra to host a VM; but we already know this 
will be difficult due to the need for Infra to standardize on a few 
variants. So it might be that the outcome of my work is a nice wiki page 
that can be used to setup a release-capable build machine with minimal 

>> It was time-limited and it expired. I'm not sure what Infra decided to
>> do (they were examining options for code signing, with no big preference
>> for the solution in use; this was about 6 months ago).
> OK, we need to touch bases with them. And, find a committer that knows
> how to do this.

We've never signed our Windows installers this way (we do sign; just, 
not in a way that bypasses Windows warnings). It must be said that we've 
received virtually no requests for this by Windows users. Maybe I need 
to clarify the answer above: yes, I did get -now expired- access to a 
web-based signing system but we have never used it.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message