openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The AOO build system
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:13:53 GMT
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:

> Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. What is the main problem with the build system as it is?
>>
>
> It's ugly. I recall you once built OpenOffice, right? It is not the easy
> configure + make. Still, it works and the build system is not standing in
> the way for a release.


OK, that's good to know.  I got the impression from some earlier
discussions that it was somehow a major sticking point in terms of getting
releases out and what-not.  Good to see that that's not the case.



> 2. Do we need a whole new system, or just incremental improvements to
>> what we have?
>>
>
> In 4.2.0 we have merged significant improvements. What we have is enough
> for the time being.


Cool.


3. Regarding Mac in particular, I'll repeat this question from an earlier
>> thread:  Does the ASF have Mac hardware for doing Mac builds, or are we
>> dependent solely on developer machines for that?
>>
>
> All OpenOffice releases have always been built on machines under control
> of individual developers.



Ah, OK.  Is that the desired state of affairs? Or would there be any
impetus to try to get dedicated build machines that are hosted somewhere
and used for the binary builds?



>
>
> 5. Other than Mac builds, are any other platforms especially limited or
>> restricted in any way?
>>
>
> Our reference environments are described at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/o
> penoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.1.2/ ; the build system itself is not
> a huge obstacle. I concede that a newcomer will find it hard, but you
> mastered it, so you are one of the few who actually know whether it is too
> hard.
>

As I recall, running an AOO build (on Linux) wasn't exactly trivial, but it
wasn't mind numbingly difficult either.  The big hold up I ran into was
that there was some bug or other back then, that was blocking things up.
IIRC, there was already a known work-around / fix for that, so hopefully
that has been incorporated by now.




> 6. Do we still build for OS/2? :-)
>>
>
> We don't support it officially. Volunteers do it as a third-party port but
> they do contribute code to the project, so for example 4.1.2 saw a number
> of changes that were meant to make the OS/2 build possible.


Cool. I haven't used it in over a decade, but I still have a soft-spot for
OS/2.  :-)


Phil

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message