incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:33:16 GMT
Hi Pedro,

On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky.
> Unfortunately portable packagers seem not
> to be too common anymore.

the point is simply that we have to understand the whole packaging 
process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's possible to use 
a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even obsolete. 
But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the 3.7 epm and the 
patches we have because they are very specific for OOo.

I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a 
little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. In the past 
all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a 
StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it.

The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand 
how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this 
packaging stuff ...

Juergen

>
> 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