incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre Fischer ...@a-w-f.de>
Subject Re: HEADS UP: install sets were renamed from OOo* to Apache_OpenOffice_incubating*
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:48:52 GMT
Hm, so we have a limit at 72 or 260 or 128 (UDF/CDROM, or 64 for 
Joliet), but error reports are not reproducible?

Anyway, the path names inside the packages have not changed so the 
installed office is not affected.  Only the name of the package has changed.

-Andre

On 23.03.2012 13:26, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> 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.
>

Mime
View raw message