incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:15:55 GMT
Some friendly advice is to be careful how you "promote"
that buildbot link.  The ASF has very strict rules regarding
the promotion of releases versus build artifacts- which
are only supposed to be exposed to fellow developers: see

http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what


HTH



----- Original Message -----
> From: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
> 
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>  On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>> 
>>  > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>  >> 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...
>>  > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with 
> infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is 
> a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they 
> are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed 
> CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
>> 
>>  The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the 
> logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
>> 
>>  > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
>> 
>>  I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of 
> Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
> 
> My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
> should take precedence for branding purpose.
> 
> In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
> OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
> smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
> they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
> 
> I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
> release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
> ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
> understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
> this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
> it sounds like.
> 
> I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
> details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
> signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
> as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
> up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
> break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
> concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
> Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
> full blown new name and branding, not the website.
> 
> just my .02
> 
> //drew
> 
>> 
>>  Regards,
>>  Dave
>> 
>>  > 
>>  > A.
>>  >> 
>>  >> 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