incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
Date Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:20:53 GMT
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
> This situation doesn't seem to be diffusing itself,
> even tho I have tried to explain that the 3.4.0 release
> deps "packaging" does not comply with infra policy.
> Surely there is a middle ground here- that the missing
> release deps package simply be generated from those
> tarballs in svn.  So long as the source release uses
> deps from the (downloaded from mirrors) deps package
> instead of directly from svn, AFAICT this project will
> be in compliance with all legal and infra policies.

So what would the status of the debs tarball be?  Is it part of the
release?  Do we vote on it?  It has cat-b source in it, so one would
think that this could not be in a release, and not on the mirrors?  Or
is there a recognized exception for dependencies provided as a

> Whether that's best practice is debatable, but I don't
> believe it's so unreasonable that a rational person
> would withhold their participation in the project over it.
>> From: Pedro Giffuni <>
>>To:; Jürgen Schmidt <>
>>Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:52 PM
>>Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation
>>On 06/02/12 15:11, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Well I am a committer in the only big UNIX-like
>>>> distribution that is carrying Apache OpenOffice
>>>> nowadays. We would really like to use a source
>>>> distribution through ASF mirrors but since the ASF
>>>> doesn't provide one that works well we have been
>>>> rolling our own. Having a working source
>>>> distribution would help attract linux packagers,
>>>> I think.
>>> well if that is really the case you have failed on several levels
>>> - you didn't really have used or tried the source tarball
>>> - you didn't gave the appropriate and necessary feedback
>>> - you didn't helped to fix your concerns relating the source release. At least
it seems you have some concerns
>>Sure, I am not perfect but you can't really blame the
>>messenger if the package was broken.
>>I have huge experience packaging stuff for my own selfish
>>purposes in the past (BRL-CAD, FEM utilities, stuff like that),
>>however I am not a ports committer/packager myself;
>>I am a src committer. You can see my work in some sound
>>drivers, the ext2fs implementation and some compiler
>>updates. I have been very busy between kernel coding
>>and the AOO SVN stuff to work also on the AOO
>>The vast packaging work in FreeBSD has been done by
>>Maho-san for several years and he has been so efficient
>>I haven't really had to intervene other than to give some
>>minor suggestions. He is a ports committer and I am so
>>glad he has been around to take care of things.
>>I have been busy on some updates and I only noticed
>>a few days ago that we are not using the source tarballs
>>provided by Apache. I can't really test everything behind
>>a release and, with due respect, all I do is voluntary work
>>so I do have to spend my time in other activities too.
>>I am attempting to provide some feedback here but
>>I would suggest you ask the guys doing Ubuntu or
>>Debian packaging if they are using the src tarballs
>>and how we can make the packaging easier.
>>> That makes me really thinking ...
>>Please stop imagining things. I know you guys are not
>>happy about having to do extra reshuffling in the tree
>>and playing with scripts to adapt things to what *I*
>>think is the Apache way. In all honesty let's admit I had
>>mentioned this was a grey area since a long time ago
>>and I have even offered to step aside and let
>>the project evolve on it's own.

View raw message