incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Brouwer" <simon.o...@xs4all.nl>
Subject Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:08:32 GMT

Christian Lippka schreef:
> Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer:
>> Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef:
>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>
>>> Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
>>>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>> I posted a similar  statement yesterday. Personally, I think the
>>>>>> traffic
>>>>>> on this list has settled  down a lot in the last 24 hours and is
now
>>>>>> focusing in on topics more relevant  to this list. But maybe that
>>>>>> is just
>>>>>> because it was Saturday :-)
>>>>> Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the
>>>>> libreoffice
>>>>> lists at this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I  am still waiting to hear on are:
>>>>>> 1. The amount of code in the project that  the grant didn't give
>>>>>> to us
>>>>>> under the Apache License.
>>>>> Not a blocker for starting incubation.  IOW we don't ask for this
>>>>> level of
>>>>> detail from other podlings.
>>>> It might be a blocker for my vote.  You are, of course, free to vote
>>>> differently.  This is a much larger project than usually enters the
>>>> incubator.  I'm worried that if the project has too much of this
>>>> kind of work to deal with it will kill the community.
>>> If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set
>>> of source files is missing something to
>>> make this a working project.
>>>
>>> As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1
>>> copy from the mercurial
>>> repository available at OpenOffice.org.
>>
>> I was looking at that, but I have the impression that the source code
>> for a number of "external" projects is not present in the mercurial
>> checkout and still has to be retrieved as part of the building
>> process. There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth
>> mentioning, in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt...
>>
>> It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/
> Yes and no. Usually external project would be build in modules like
> stlport, openssl etc.  The archives with the sources would be in the
> above url. But what is missing
> are the patches to those external source archives.

OK, so these patches should be added to the software grant, hardly a
problem I should think.

But a practical matter is whether ASF can provide a similar repository of
"external project" archives, which much simplifies the build process, or
is the policy not to distribute any source under non-ASL licenses strictly
maintained?

-- 
Vriendelijke groet,

Simon Brouwer
-*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*-


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message