incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Date Sat, 21 Apr 2012 05:03:09 GMT
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 14:38:34 -0700:
>>> I'm assuming by  Pedro's remark that if 3.3.0 is ported to Apache
>>> archives, security patches will have been applied -- i.e. THAT version
>>> rebuilt with security, right?
>> "Rebuilt" kind of defeats the purpose of archives..
> I'd expect it to just be the current archive as well.
> Adding the need to have every 3.3 patched is an unnecessary prerequisite to mirroring
3.3 in the archives.
> Instead writing scripts and instructions enabling users to apply the current security
patch on Linux is a separate task for another thread.

And it would be appropriate to have a warning on the page that links
to the earlier versions, along the lines of, "We recommend that you
run the most recent version of Apache OpenOffice in order to have the
most recent fixes, including important security fixes. An archive of
older versions of are made available for those who
require them for specialized purposes, but we recommend that all
general users should run the most recent version".

Something like that.

But eventually we might decide, as a project, that we want to maintain
more than one version of AOO.   We don't really have that flexibility
with OOo 3.3. But we could, for example,declare that AOO 3.4 is a LTS
version that will be supported via patches or revisions, for some
period of time (12 months?),in parallel with AOO 4.0. If we want to do
that, then we would essentially have two "current" versions of AOO. I
don't think the LTS version would go to the archive mirror. So we'd
probably end up requiring twice the disk space, but approximately the
same bandwidth to cover that.


> Regards,
> Dave
>> (the same version number shouldn't correspond to more than one set of
>> source code)

View raw message