openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CentOS build box.
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:40:32 GMT


On 06/01/2015 12:09 AM, jan i wrote:
> On 31 May 2015 at 18:43, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 05/30/2015 05:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2015 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>> On 05/30/2015 01:57 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>> Assuming AOO builds on CentOS 6, is there any reason to insist
>>>>> on CentOS 5?
>>>> There was a dissension. I did ask about the ramifications -- what
>>>> specifically IS the issue to moving to CetnOS 6 -- but got no reply.
>>>
>>> I think it was already explained by Ariel and me at the time. But in
>>> short, OpenOffice 4.x has CentOS 5.x (or the equivalent Red Hat 5.x) as
>>> a baseline distribution: in a certain sense, we commit to keeping
>>> sources buildable on CentOS 5 and to distributing binaries that run on
>>> distributions as old as CentOS 5. In order to change our baseline
>>> distribution we would normally need a compelling technical reason or a
>>> major version change (say, OpenOffice 5.x).
>>
>> I understand this but from a technical standpoint, what are the show
>> stoppers with ver 6 vs 5? Or, put another way, what would be impacted in
>> AOO if this change were made today?
>>
>>>
>>> Then for the buildbots we already use more modern distributions, but a
>>> CentOS buildbot would best be setup with CentOS 5 for the reasons
>>> explained above: a CentOS 5 buildbot would even allow us to build
>>> releases directly on it.
>>
>> Sure, in fact, this is what Juergen suggested in his resignation as
>> Release Manager, and for some reason, I thought (maybe?) we had agreed on:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/qh6uzkfjcya647sb
>>
>>
>> I'm not saying this is a prerequisite for
>>> releasing 4.1.2, I'm simply explaining why the current situation makes
>>> it much more useful to have a CentOS 5 buildbot than a CentOS 6 one.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>
>> OK, thanks. In summary, we seem to agree that establishing buildbots for
>> our actual binary release candidates is more than just important, but
>> necessary. I do admit that maybe this wasn't clear to everyone.
>>
> +1, and I am convinced that as soon as we get what we already have
> operational,
> infra will not be a release-blocker if we need additional buildbots.
> 
> Looking at other threads, it seems our Mac buildbots are in the process of
> being
> configured, does anybody have a planned ETA ?
> 
> Who can/will look at the windows buildbot, it seems svn is not working ?
> 
> We also need to reconfigure all buildbots to run with release config.

I don't understand the above sentence.

> 
> I am quite busy with a couple of other things, so I do not have spare
> cycles at the
> moment.

OK, I will at least followup on the infra ticket to see why the 64-bit
CentOS 6 machine seems to now be offline. I do hope in the next few
weeks, I will be able to help with a 32-bit CentOS box.


> 
> rgds
> jan i.
> 
>>
>>

-- 
--------------------------------------------
MzK

"We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
 somewhere at any given time,
 the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
                          -- David Letterman

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message