incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:34:53 GMT
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

And why cannot we do both?  After all, there are volunteers who can
update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++
code.  So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding
comes at the expense of updating the C++ code.

> 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
>

I'm not hearing an objection to someone doing the inevitable website
branding updates now.  It is just that you would prefer yourself to
concentrate on the product code?

(I'm disregarding for the moment the possibility that you have a
opinion on what other volunteers should do.  I'm not sure that is
entirely relevant.  The direction of the project in the end is the sum
of our individual preferences for what we want to work on at a given
time, not what we want others to work on)

> //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