incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject non-ASF distribution...Re: CD-ROMs for consumers
Date Mon, 14 May 2012 21:18:15 GMT
OK, I changed the subject on this since I think what we need to discuss 
applies to more than just CD-ROMs...I hope  that's OK, see my reply below...

On 05/14/2012 01:06 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts<luispo@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi
>> On 2012-05-14, at 12:47 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM,<info@softwaredistributor.info>  wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I found so many invalid links(Dead links)or not open office software
>>>> related.
>>>>> Because this page not update for years
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/cdrom/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This page has repeatedly been the source of confusion and concern.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW -- I de-linked the CDROM info from the current download page before we
>>> went live. The old distribution info, of course, continued to live on...so
>>> this was needed.
>>>
>>> I started, rather feebly, a new page yesterday that I thought might be a
>>> catch all for all manners of third party distributions --CDROM, other
>>> builds not by Apache. That would tie in or actually be replaced by this new
>>> page you started. yeah, we need to work on this, hopefully soon, to get
>>> more options out there.
>>>
>>> This new page is good until we determine HOW we even want to "verify"
>>> what's being distributed by these methods.
>>
>> What would "verify" mean? When I set up the CDROM project and distribution category,

the verification was simple: the binaries and source (if that was what 
they wanted to deliver, too;

  a link would have worked, and did, usually) had to come from one of 
OOo's mirrors, and we (Alex, at that point) pointed them to those. (That 
was the mirrors list I set up but which was then later maintained by 
several, including Florian E.)
>>
>> Why not do the same? It must come from an AOO distribution mirror.

We simply trust those who claim that that is how they obtained the 
binaries.

As to what is distributed on CDROM (or DVD): what they want, in addition 
to a legitimate binary.

And it need not be, of course, in English.

I think I used "verify" instead of "vetting"...not the same thing.

So, a few areas to discuss-- folks that contact us about a more formal 
inclusion (let's call them partners for this discussion),  those that 
don't, and finally, places we find on our own.

== non-formal distributions ==
Right now, as we've discovered, there are already folks distributing 3.4 
that we don't know anything about. We don't know who they are, we don't 
even know WHAT they've got in their distributions. They haven't asked 
for permission from us, we don't even know where they're obtaining what 
they've got.
We should, by some means, address this immediately in some way -- 
message on the home page etc. We don't know who they are, we don't even 
know WHAT they've got in their distributions.

This doesn't require any process by us.


== partners, more formal requests ==
I would put the former CD-ROM folks in this category. We provided a list 
for our customers to obtain OOo in this way.

Your ideas about obtaining software from one of the mirrors is good here.

Rob's replacement page for distribution talks about our establishing a 
process--

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/distribution/index.html

so let's talk about that. What should this process be? What are we 
requiring from them. What information do we need from third party folks, 
like CD-ROM providers or other builds/methods of distribution, that come 
to us?


== and finally, helping ourselves ==

Do we know of any sites with AOO 3.4 that we want to include for users 
with potentially helpful distributions? This is  a case where no one has 
contacted us but we found something that might be useful, and tested it 
out to our satisfaction.

A case in point would be (me) putting that UpUbuntu link in the install 
guide.  These folks didn't even come to us, and there have been concerns 
by other ooo-dev folks about it. At the time, many were excited about 
it, but, well...maybe not so fast... Does adding something like this to 
a page on our site somehow make us responsible for it?

Further thoughts?


>>
>
> The prior discussion on this was last week, in a thread called "Who is
> Page Maintainer Now? http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/cdrom/"
>
> -Rob

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
  And life has a funny way of helping you out
  Helping you out."
                             -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Mime
View raw message