incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <d...@baseanswers.com>
Subject Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
Date Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:38:18 GMT
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 09:57 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 08:48 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> >> > Am 08/18/2012 06:38 AM, schrieb Keith N. McKenna:
> >> >
> >> >> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am 08/02/2012 02:12 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:37 PM, drew<drew@baseanswers.com>
wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew
> >> >>>>>> jensen<drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:09 -0700, Pedro Giffuni
wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Kay;
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I did some basic update to the FreeBSD porting
site sometime ago:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/freebsd/
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> The site doesn't seem linked from the top-level
porting site though.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I would prefer to spend my time on the code
rather than on the
> >> >>>>>>>> release
> >> >>>>>>>> announcement, however feel free to mention
explicitly the FreeBSD
> >> >>>>>>>> port.
> >> >>>>>>>> Just to make it clear: we still have some cleanup
to do but the
> >> >>>>>>>> port is
> >> >>>>>>>> fully operational and FreeBSD users are fully
aware that it's
> >> >>>>>>>> available
> >> >>>>>>>> on FreeBSD releases.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Pedro.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hi Pedro,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Then for BSD it should be enough to just point
to the page you
> >> >>>>>>> updated,
> >> >>>>>>> yes?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> IMHO, we should consolidate all the porting links onto
that one page.
> >> >>>>>> That way it gives one clear place to link to in the
announcement, but
> >> >>>>>> also a single place we can link to from other places
in the future.
> >> >>>>>> For example, we should probably eventually have a link
to the porting
> >> >>>>>> page from the download page.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> -Rob
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> hmmm - well, I'm just getting around to looking at things
for this
> >> >>>>> evening.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Looking at the page(s) now... *chuckling*..
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This might not be the right place for what I thought was
the task - a
> >> >>>>> list of existing known ports which are not part of the
official AOO
> >> >>>>> release regiment.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The porting page and it's associated pages seem more about
the act of
> >> >>>>> creating a port, with
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> and
> >> >>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_implement.html
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> which starts off by pointing to this page:
> >> >>>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Porting_Efforts
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> and that offers links to places such as
> >> >>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/udk/cpp/man/cpp_bridges.html
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> So do we really want a page for listing existing non-official
ports
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>> are known, a simple information service for our users without
and
> >> >>>>> explicitly stating such, endorsing the work - or do we
want a resource
> >> >>>>> for those wanting to perform a port to a new platform -
for the
> >> >>>>> announcement(s) that is.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes. ;-)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Maybe the existing porting page remains as a developer-focused
page?
> >> >>>> It needs to be updated, of course, but maybe not as urgent.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Then we also need a user-facing page about existing ports.
Maybe that
> >> >>>> could be a new page in the /download directory?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There is already a page which points to 3rd party software / packages:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Kay has created this to compensate the old distribution webpage
which
> >> >>> was totally outdated.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, what about to extend this new page with a "Ports" section from
> >> >>> FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2 and others?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> For the announcement the user-facing one would be the most
> >> >>>> appropriate, yes?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think so.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Marcus
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> Morning All;
> >> >>
> >> >> Just checking in on this thread to see if there has been any consensus
> >> >> on how we should do this or if we should. As we are fast approaching
> >> >> release of 3.4.1 I would like to get this into the Release Notes.
> >> >>
> >> >> As a stated bore I believe that it is important to get the information
> >> >> out that these operating systems are not forgotten and that Apache
> >> >> OpenOffice is available.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As I haven't seen any different let's add these OSs with a statement to
the
> >> > "non_ASF.html" webpage.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The announcement current links to:  http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
> >>
> >> Is that the wrong place?  That URL is the top listing if someone
> >> searches Google for "openoffice ports.
> >>
> >> I'm happy to change the announcement to point to:
> >> http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html
> >>
> >> But we would need to get some content there.  It is in the CMS, so
> >> anyone can edit it.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Marcus
> >>
> >
> > Ah, I was supposed to make up something for that - well it's Saturday
> > morning and I can do that now..
> >
> > to be sure - it is this page that gets updated:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html
> >
> > yes?
> >
> 
> I think that is what Marcus was suggesting.  Should probably have
> mention of BSD, Solaris, OS/2 ports.  And did we also agree on
> WinPenPack and portableApps (or did they ever release an AOO version?)

Howdy,

I think so, would of expected anyone wanting to object to have done so
when it was mentioned before, that was with a very clear notice that we
neither certify or endorse the work product on the page also.

and... I believe they both did - will go double check that and get URLs.

//drew

> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> > //drew
> >
> >
> 



Mime
View raw message