incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danese Cooper <>
Subject Re: A little OOo history
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:00:13 GMT
Hi Phil,

IMHO we would have to roll vanilla builds just to make sure it still builds when we declare
a version. It used to take some iterations and tweaks per version to get a valid build (imagine
that's still true). ASF should at least validate "buildability" as part of servicing the codebase,
but I would assume effectively zero consumer end-users would get their software from us...


On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Phillip Rhodes <> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Danese Cooper <> wrote:
>> 4) most customers use OOo on Windows
>> Last time I checked, the percentage of Windows users was still in the high
>> 90s percentile. But it builds on the various Linux distros, as well as
>> MacOSX and a bunch of other platforms, each with their own lovely and unique
>> quirks. This complexity is one of the reasons it might be a good idea to
>> behave like and let OOo "distros" handle end-user packaging and
>> distribution.  Another reason would be that consumers are relatively
>> unsophisticated and ask a lot of silly questions...
> Thanks, Danese, that does clarify things  a bit for those of us who haven't
> been involved since the beginning.
> One question about the comment above though:  Are you advocating that Apache
> OOo stick to source-only releases, and avoid
> building and delivering binaries altogether?  Or is your idea that Apache
> OOo would deliver builds, but that they be "Vanilla OOo" , ala the "vanilla
> kernel" from, with a presumption that (some|most|all) end-users
> will choose to use a distribution provided by somebody else... where
> somebody else could be IBM, Novell, LibreOffice, Red Hat, etc.?
> Thanks,
> Phil

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

View raw message