openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CentOS build box.
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:09:30 GMT
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 am quite busy with a couple of other things, so I do not have spare
cycles at the
moment.

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