incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ingrid von der Mehden <>
Subject Re: [Repo][Proposal] OOO340 SVN Dump file import
Date Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:10:10 GMT
Am 19.08.2011 14:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
> On 19.08.2011 13:43, Ingrid von der Mehden wrote:
>> Am 18.08.2011 18:27, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>>> On 18.08.2011 17:17, Rob Weir wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> 2) Do we have the basic directory structure right? (Could fix that
>>>> later, but easier to get it right initially)
>>> The structure is fine and AFAIK reflects the consensus, just the names
>>> "main" and "extras" are debatable. We will have an "extras" module in
>>> the "main" repo, perhaps we can find a better name for that part. But
>>> that can be changed easily post import.
>> If we want to change the 'outer' directory names, lets change them now.
>> It is difficult enough for people to learn all the new things and find
>> the way to the code. So let us not make it more complicated by changing
>> the main repository path more often than necessary.
> I doubt that changing it next week, directly after import, would confuse
> anyone. OTOH getting the first import soon and not postponing it until
> this discussion has settled is a big step forward.

Directly after import is fine. There was consensus on that already. But 
if we don't discuss the name change now, we need another couple of weeks 
and the moment directly after import will have gone. So do you have 
different names in mind?

>> For the two 'extras' directories I would favor to move as much stuff as
>> possible from the inner 'extras' to the outer 'extras'. If that is not
>> possible lets rename the inner one. Looking at the deliver list we seem
>> to have wordbooks and fonts here. All the gallery content and the
>> templates are here also even with localization! I doubt that most of
>> this is really needed for the typical day to day coding. It's more
>> design related stuff. So moving this out of 'main' would be a benefit.
>> But that move can be done later. When we do that I would like to
>> consider moving module helpcontent2 to the outer extras directory also.
> Hm, what is the meaning of "main"? Is it a "minimal" repository that is
> needed for building at least the code or should it be what makes up the
> "regular" en-US build? If we agree that it's the latter, the "extras"
> module belongs into "main". Of course we can think about breaking it
> into several parts, like "templates", "gallery" etc. That would be an
> improvement not only because it avoids the name clash.

Yeah breaking it apart in the described way would be an improvement also.

Good question regarding 'minimal' and 'regular'. I am not totally 
decided. Is there a way to have both? For the day to day development I 
think an easy and fast way to build a minimal office would be the 
greater benefit. But that demand might clash with demands from QA side ...

>> I haven't looked so deeply into the new build system and the packaging
>> so far. Would it be possible to build a minimal office install set with
>> or without the outer 'extras' directory dependent on its existence? Or
>> is it necessary to define some environment variables?
> It's not a problem of the build system, the packaging is too inflexible
> ATM. But that can be tweaked also.

I hoped you would say that.

> The new build system is capable of
> working with several (sub-)repositories, the old one still needs the
> "source_config" crutch.

Yes, I now found for the new system there is the environment variable 
gb_REPOS which takes the list of repos. Lets assume it contains the two 
repos 'main' and 'extras'. What happens if the directory 'extras' is not 
present? Does the build abort with error, or does it continue with 
warning? Can we make it so that it does continue with a gentle note?

Kind regards,

> Regards,
> Mathias

View raw message