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 Re: questions about the "porting" project
Date Wed, 16 May 2012 20:07:33 GMT


On 05/16/2012 11:48 AM, � wrote:
> Dear Confused,
>
> My reply is long; short answer: Porting evolved, and there were those
> builds maintained by Sun for its clients and then there were those
> initiated and maintained by the community. Over time, the roster of
> Sun-maintained ports changed. I can give a bigger history of
> this�it's kind of interesting, if you are really bored�:-)

well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)

Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with 
any open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can sustain.

Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should 
include as "official" builds vs not.

Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are involved 
with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these builds on 
the mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.

A further discussion I think. I would think any "ports" by AOO 
committers would at some point, be part of the official builds. But more 
to follow...

Yeah, these walks down memory lane can be quite interesting. :)

>
> On 2012-05-16, at 13:50 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Louis
>> Su�rez-Potts<luispo@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 2012-05-15, at 17:37 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all--
>>>>
>>>> I was just taking a look at the porting project site:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
>>>>
>>>> could someone who is familiar with this project, and hopefully
>>>> currently involved with it, fill us in on what the affiliation
>>>> of the porters
>>> listed
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
>>>>
>>>> were to the OpenOffice.org project? Were they committers, etc?
>>>>
>>>> And, if you could provide some idea of the usage numbers for
>>>> each, if
>>> they
>>>> were kept somewhere,  that would be great. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I think I can probably answer most of the questions, as we did
>>> track those data, but not sure: much of what was there is a)
>>> gone, b) old, really old.
>>>
>>> That said, regarding the committers: See,
>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
>>>
>>> "Domain Developer," as you know, meant that one had access as a
>>> committer globally.
>>>
>>> As to general ports, from memory:
>>>
>>> 1. Windows.>  95% And then Mac OS X And then, in the single
>>> digits, the rest. (Linux distros., of course, included OOo and
>>> its variants.)
>>>
>>> The old spreadsheets from the first few years are probably not
>>> quite accurate--they never were--but suggestive of the breakdown
>>> then of "everything else". However, now, things are quite a lot
>>> different, and past data ought not to prescribe present, let
>>> alone future behaviour.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>
>> Hi Louis--
>>
>> OK, I'm already confused. The porting page above has no Windows
>> info on it at all...what I see are mostly *nix derivatives, along
>> with a few others -- VMS, OS/2,  etc.
>>
>
> Yes. The Porting Project, led by Martin H., and originally at
> porting.openoffice.org/, now www.oo.org/porting/ I think, focused on
> community builds.  The old wiki (I mean *old*) Roadmap that sheds
> some ancient light is at
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Porting_Roadmap. (One could
> also just ask Martin, of course.) I couldn't find a project wiki for
> Porting�perhaps Eric or Maho or Joost might know�but I also think
> that there was never one. As you know, many projects did not have
> evolved doubles living in the wikis�Website, for instance, didn't,
> afaik.
>
> The standard builds were Windows, Solaris, LInux; community builds
> were everything else, including Mac OS X, but this was then
> established as something Sun was officially interested in working on
> sometime in 2006-2007, I think, though Eric B can correct me. (The
> OOo Milestone page would have that datum.)
>
>> My question, more specifically, is why weren't these included with
>> the other releases -- i.e. Windows, Solaris, MacIntel -- and
>> shuttled to the mirrors instead of a separate area like this?
>
> Eric Bachard, Maho NAKATA, could probably answer better, as could
> Joost or Juergen, I'm sure. But it has to do, to a degree, with the
> cleaving elements of OOo: that some ports were substantially QA'd and
> maintained by the contributing company as well as the interested
> community and others pretty much only by the interested community,
> which nevertheless followed the strictest QA protocols. Another way
> of thinking of it, is that it had to do with resources available-and
> able to be coordinated.
>
> The overall issue was very difficult to resolve, and probably wasn't
> (continuance relied more on personality than structure). We are
> encountering a version of it here. Some builds�say the most desired
> and popular, both platform and language-wise�are ready before other,
> less popular ones. Do we issue the ready ones immediately? Or do we
> wait? And if you are dealing with, say, a dozen ports and over 100
> languages, many of which are not regularly maintained but you don't
> always know which, the logistics become even more fun. So, in
> coordination with the community and centring a lot of this on QA,
> compromises were made. They were unstable, as became evident. But,
> really, this is a perennial problem in open source projects: what to
> release, how to release, when to release, and so on. Fwiw, my friend
> Martin Michlmayr, of Debian fame and now with HP leading the best of
> that company's open source window, wrote his dissertation on the
> problem of releases in open source projects. The conclusion: You need
> a release programme.
>
>
>>
>> They seem to be considered "official" from OpenOffice.org and yet,
>> not quite.
>>
>> Can you tell me why?
>
> Without being dangerously cynical? No. :-) But more directly�and I
> have difficulty in being cynical--I probably framed the scenario
> above. The bigger issue, which is less obvious, and characteristic of
> some few corporate engagements with open source, is that large
> company Z. responds to market pressures, and though open source
> projects, which include participants generally part of the same
> market environment, may nevertheless look to satisfy insistent user
> demands that significantly diverge from those the sponsoring company
> is working on and thus allocating its resources to resolving. In the
> case of OOo, as well as other projects, where we had "project leads"
> and where the route to becoming one was as obvious as the route to
> heaven and more difficult, it put into question the governance model,
> especially as we proclaimed democratic and meritocratic virtues like
> any other open source project.
>
> Sorry for length.
>
> Cheers Louis
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
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
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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