incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:41:00 GMT
Your mentors would prefer to treat the
members of this podling as a group of 

adults, and if given compelling reasons
to do unusual things in this podling
will often avoid telling you otherwise.

But if people insist on infighting and backbiting
each other about differences of opinions, we'll
just shut up and wait for more intelligent emails
to emerge.

I've given the group my opinion on how to proceed
on this issue if the consensus of the PPMC is to
continue including Category-B sources in its svn
tree.  Please don't make me think I've wasted my
time in providing that opinion.

> From: Jürgen Schmidt <>
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:32 AM
>Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>On 1/13/12 3:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> --- Ven 13/1/12, Andre Fischer<>  ha scritto:
>> ...
>>>> I think the issue is very easy to resolve: drop the
>>>> tarballs from SVN and provide sufficient instructions
>>>> so that the people doing the builds can download the
>>>> tarballs themselves: we even have nice ""
>>>> script to do just that.
>>> I am not quite sure that I understand the problem here.
>> Well perhaps I can explain it better as I *am* creating
>> source releases for my own personal use.
>> The normal way to build a source releases is to pull the
>> code from SVN (as described in the web page). This will
>> download category-A and Category-B software. Category-B
>> is not built by default but it is in the same directory
>> with Category-A software so I don't find a clear
>> separation.
>well that is a valid point that comes into my mind as well when I have read the mails
and thought a little bit longer.
>If that is the only reason than we can move it besides trunk. But that is a technical
solution only and it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
>And what is more important we can't exchange everything now and we can't remove all the
features that depends on this category-b stuff. Otherwise the office is no longer useable
and we can stop here or can kill the project directly.
>Or we take it serious and find compromises and exchange stuff over time when possible.
>Apache got for whatever reason the source grant and the trademarks of one of the biggest
and most successful open source projects. So far so good. Normally I would expect the organization
would be happy and would do everything that this project can continue in the way as before.
Yes there are changes necessary and again we are working on it but we can't do everything
at once ...
>The whole discussion is not really motivating for project members and of course does not
really promote the Apache way or the ASF in general.
>> Technically, we are indeed forking the mozilla code: we
>> carry the source tarballs and patches, so we indeed have
>> our own distributions here and that is a legal gray area.
>maybe but again we don't have any other chance here right now. We can only work on it
in the future and can try to replace it by newer code. But we need somebody who can do that,
it's far from trivial.
>> FWIW, I use saxon prepackaged already an I will likely be
>> using theprepackaged beanshell so I don't need
>> those tarballs. Seamonkey takes too long to build and
>> nss involves security risks so this just adds bloat
>> to my sources.
>it's your personal opinion and many users simply rely on these features and use it. Your
are on FreeBSD a minor platform that has no real relevance for the user base of OpenOffice.
>So we always have to take Windows into account and on Windows you don't have system libraries
for this stuff.
>So please come back to reality.
>PS who will go demotivated into the weekend
>>> Would it be OK to move the category-b tar balls to eg
>>> SourceForge or Google and just adapt the URL in the
>>> ooo.lst file?
>> I was thinking we should point users directly to the
>> mozilla foundation but I think an external site would
>> effectively solve the Category-B issues.
>> All just IMHO.
>> Pedro.
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message