incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <d...@baseanswers.com>
Subject Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:50:01 GMT
On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 19:41 +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Hi Dave
> 
> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She 
> is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual 
> tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
> 
> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this 
> builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so 
> it's right to bring it on the list.
> 
> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it 
> self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same 
> mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with 
> Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision.
> 
> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the 
> release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors 
> computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a 
> Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task*
> 
> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a 
> serios problem.

+1

and just to confirm - I'm using Ariels builds because they work, and I
have not been able to say the same about the builds from the buildbot so
far.

> 
> Greetings Raphael
> Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> > Hi Mechtilde,
> >
> > There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are
discussed.
> >
> > Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
> >
> > Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
> >
> > Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots
for several platforms.
> >
> > Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
> >
> > I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and
let people know...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Hello Jürgen,
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >>> Hi Mechtilde,
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<ooo@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> >>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> >>>
> >>> But:
> >>>
> >>> What should a user do?
> >>>
> >>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> >>> testing.
> >>>
> >>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> >>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> >>>
> >>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> >>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
> >>>
> >>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> >>>
> >>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> >>> to test from "official" build maschines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We
don't
> >>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did
a lot
> >>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> >> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> >> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build
for
> >>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is
much
> >>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> >> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
> >> it before a release.
> >>
> >>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build
bot
> >>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel.
And it
> >>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. 
That
> >>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
> >>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> >> It depends on the based distribution.
> >>
> >> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
> >> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> >>
> >>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases
and
> >>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
> >>>> purposes.
> >> That's what I ask for.
> >>
> >>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start
to
> >>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release
process
> >>>> over time.
> >> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
> >>
> >> Thats my question
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >>
> >> Mechtilde
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards
> >>>
> >>> Mechtilde
> >>>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >>
> >> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
> >> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
> >> =ulAm
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> 
> 



Mime
View raw message