incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE][3.4.1]: release blocker
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:36:52 GMT
On 8/1/12 2:44 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to bring up a new issue for our upcoming release. Thanks to
>> Ariel who brought this to my attention.
>>
>> It is related to our external tarballs where we never got a 100% clear
>> answer.
>>
>> - we host them in ooo/ext_sources
>> - Pedro has already move cat-b stuff to ooo-extras on apache-extras
>> - these tar balls are not part of our src release, they are checked in
>> there for convenience and when we started the project we had to find a
>> place for them to move forward
>> - the tar balls get downloaded on demand during the bootstrap process in
>> our build process
>> - but as fallback only if the original source is not available.
>> - the svn Url is referenced in the external_deps.lst file which is part
>> of the src release
>>
>> Our SVN Url will change if we potentially graduate. This change will
>> break our src release.
>>
>> To avoid potential -1 votes from IPMC members or mentors for the 3.4.1
>> release and potential problems with our planned graduation I suggest
>> that we fix this problem for 3.4.1. I hate to say that but it means that
>> we have to rebuilt again. But it will avoid potential problems.
>>
> 
> So two issues:
> 
> 1) Pedro's concerns on Category-b tarballs stored in svn
> 
> 2) Infra concerns about a build system that "phones home" and
> downloads additional files from subversion
> 
> To resolve both issues we need to remove build dependencies on *all*
> download dependencies on svn tarballs, not just category-b ones.   If
> there are only category-a ones we should move them to Apache extras as
> well, right?

that is how I understand it now as well. We still have to improve to
understand the not written down policies or to ask so long questions
until we get clear answers.

> 
> Or is this not an issue?

I think that is an issue and that the reason why I proposed a further
rebuild. I would like to avoid further fruitless discussion and to bring
us closer to a release with no surprising negative votes.

Juergen


> 
> -Rob
> 
>> The related issue is https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120425
>>
>> This change will only affect the src release builds but we have to pack
>> the office again to include the new version number.
>>
>> I will keep you informed
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message