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 20:36:01 GMT
See the page- that is properly descriptive so is ok from
my standpoint.  Something similar with a buildbot link
is certainlyreasonable.



----- Original Message -----
> From: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
> To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
> 
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 12:15 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>  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
> 
> Thanks - ok, read that.
> 
> For a concrete example the OO.o project has historically had a link from
> the download page to Developer Snapshots:
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/next/index.html
> 
> I've noted a number of the developers on the mailing list here bring up
> the idea of the weekly build - and that is where my thinking was, so
> where I used buildBot, I'd substitute, this Developer Snapshot which I'd
> presume will end up coming from the buildBot..
> 
> //drew
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- 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