Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de
 designates 213.209.103.13 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F99B0CD.7060902@wtnet.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:32:13 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE} a few DL questions...
References: <4F997396.3080106@gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksohVeKVUZopQzP5Ew-mRJQCoi0Xs0QA4-Yhw8hXZQqmdyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksohVeKVUZopQzP5Ew-mRJQCoi0Xs0QA4-Yhw8hXZQqmdyw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 04/26/2012 07:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I've been working on a prototype of the DL button in the /download/test area
>> given our discussions about split mirror setup for 3.4 etc. I have a  few
>> more edits to do  before sending out a notification about final review
>> (later today).
>>
>> But...I have a few questions for this release.
>>
>> * The DL scripts have a good amount of logic surrounding the naming/download
>> of 3.2 and 3.1 releases-- the "old" naming schema. Since we won't be
>> providing "friendly" DL buttons for these anymore, is it safe to pull this
>> stuff out?
>>
>> * DL locations for Mac PPC and FreeBSD are as follows (excuse wrapping):
>>
>> var MIRROR_MAC_PPC_URL      =
>> "http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/macosppc/";
>> var MIRROR_FREEBSD32_URL    =
>> "http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/freebsdx86/";
>> var MIRROR_FREEBSD64_URL    =
>> "http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/freebsdx86-64/";
>>
>> Will this still be the case or will all versions be served from either
>> Apache or SourceForge? The DL logic needs to be changed if this alternate
>> URL is not used.
>>
>
> I think the main download link should only provide links to official
> AOO releases.   We could have another section (maybe in other.html)
> where we can point to third party binaries and ports.  But we should
> have a disclaimer making it clear that these packages are not official
> releases.

I would also suggest to make this separate. But please not on the 
"other.html" webpage. ;-)
It has already a hugh number of download links and much text that 
explains many points.

I would do it with separate webpages. Like:

other.html     = only for AOO 3.4 files
legacy.html    = only for OOo 3.3.0 and older files
community.html = all other stuff

BTW:
If someone has thought about to rename "other.html" to a better sounding 
name. Please note that many other websites in the Internet refer to this 
page when they want to tell the people where to download OOo - or at 
least where to get install files for all platforms and languages.

> I also agree that we should not inter-mix 3.3 and 3.4 downloads.

Yes, me too.

> Another thing to consider is how we actually invoke the download.
> Right now we simply link to the SF site.  So after the download is
> done the user is left sitting at SF.  This is not ideal.    I wonder
> whether it would be better to load the SF page in a new page, via
> target="_blank" and then refresh our download.html to contribute.html
> so after the download is done, and the user closes the SF page, they
> are back in the openoffice website with a "thanks for downloading"
> messsage and followup info to engage the user in the community.

Good point. To show the contribution webpage after the download has 
started is indeed valuable for our project.

Marcus