incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:52:50 GMT

Hmmm ...

Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky.
Unfortunately portable packagers seem not
to be too common anymore.

Pedro.

--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:

> From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM
> Hi Juergen;
> 
> I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps
> you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM
> and has a better license:
>      http://www.openpkg.net/
> 
> And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those
> packagers work with the new pkgng format.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pedro.
> 
> --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM
> > Hi,
> > 
> > i would like to gave a short update.
> > 
> > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a
> > Fedora 16 system (rpm based).
> > 
> > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It
> seems
> > that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that
> are not
> > accepted. I don't understand why at the moment.
> > 
> > I expect also problems on other systems (e.g.
> FreeBSD,
> > solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go
> back to
> > use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches.
> > 
> > The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and
> investigate
> > to a later time in more detail into the packaging
> process. I
> > assume there is still some room for improvements ones
> the
> > process is understand completely.
> > 
> > But at the moment i would like to focus and to move
> forward
> > with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool
> and
> > not part of a binary release or a source release.
> > 
> > The idea is to download the source directly from the
> > homepage and apply our patches and use it.
> Alternatively epm
> > can be specified directly with the configure switch
> > -with-epm.
> > 
> > Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful
> idea
> > that help us to move forward.
> > 
> > Juergen
> > 
> > 
> > On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> 
> > >> i am currently trying to build with a system
> > available epm tool. And i
> > >> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with
> epm
> > 4.2. Does anybody have
> > >> built with a system epm on a Linux system?
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > a short update on this topic. I was able to build
> an
> > office on an Ubuntu
> > > 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2.
> > > 
> > > With disabling a packagepool process in
> > instsetoo_native the build
> > > finished and i got my deb packages. The
> difference
> > compared to an
> > > earlier build is that the package names has
> changed a
> > little bit and
> > > that i have directories with the same name in
> the
> > .../DEPS folder which
> > > were probably the base for the packages. But that
> is a
> > minor issue i
> > > would say.
> > > 
> > > Anyway the installed office works and i have not
> yet
> > identified a real
> > > problem. But that was to easy and i expect more
> > problems on other
> > > platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a
> rpm
> > based Linux system, ...
> > > 
> > > I am no expert in this packaging area on all the
> > different systems and
> > > may be we lose the relocation feature or
> something
> > else. So if anybody
> > > has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or
> rpm
> > packages and is
> > > interested to help, please contact me. Any kind
> of
> > help is appreciated.
> > > 
> > > Juergen
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message