incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
Subject Re: HEADS UP: install sets were renamed from OOo* to Apache_OpenOffice_incubating*
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:26:03 GMT
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:08:25 -0400
TJ Frazier <tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> On 3/23/2012 05:48, Andre Fischer wrote:
> > On 22.03.2012 21:46, TJ Frazier wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 16:28, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Juergen Schmidt
> >>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 22. March 2012 at 15:19, Oliver-Rainer
> >>>> Wittmann wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 22.03.2012 13:51, Herbert Duerr wrote:
> >>>>>> Please note that the install sets that fall out of a
> >>>>>> build have been renamed
> >>>>>> from OOo* to Apache_OpenOffice_incubating* so that e.g.
> >>>>>> OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
> >>>>>> now has the file name
> >>>>>> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would prefer a shorter AOO_incubating_3.4.0_...
> >>>> I used for example a scheme like aoo-3.4-incubating-src...
> >>>> for our source release. Similar to for example the
> >>>> odftoolkit (incubating) project.
> >>>> Why expanding OOo to Apache_OpenOffice_? Ok it seems we
> >>>> have to include "incubating" but that's it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It looks like the recommendation is to use the full product
> >>> name, but the "Apache" part is optional for podlings.
> >>>
> >>> So "openoffice-3.4.0-incubating" would be one possible root.
> >>>
> >>> See:
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming
> >>
> >> Has anybody checked to see if we'll run into that idiotic
> >> 72-character limitation on path names?
> >
> > Can you explain where there this a 72-character limitation ?
> >
> > -Andre
> >
> Hi, Andre,
> The best I can find is an old issue, 109096
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=109096
> but that is a 260-character limit, and supposedly fixed
> (considering the dates, the fix may or may not have made it
> into the code base).
> 
> Some similar problem was mentioned as a build breaker on this
> list, last fall, but I don't recall enough detail to search for
> it successfully. IIRC, some change to paths and directories hit
> the bug.
> 
> I cannot substantiate the "72 character" part. Possible parity
> error in the old jelly-ware.
> >>
> >> /tj/
> >>>
> >>>> Just my 2 cents
> >>>>
> >>>> Juergen
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and another heads up ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The next developer snapshots, proposed by J├╝rgen, will
> >>>>> _not_ contain this change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards, Oliver.
> >

>From memory this was an MSDOS and early Windows limitation which
occasionally jumps out (from old link libraries?) and bites one.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie>

Mime
View raw message