Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4FA02A30.70709@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 20:23:44 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2htaWR0?= <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
References: <4F9A860F.1070800@googlemail.com>
 <CAGj32142PsRs-poTSnr8h6A3=3mYDQWehZA-kAkqkyjSBZhP8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F9AEA44.7020706@googlemail.com> <4F9AEF84.1090203@wtnet.de>
 <B57F0349-7AA2-462D-803E-78611DE38D92@comcast.net>
 <4F9AF7D4.4030708@wtnet.de> <4F9AFCE7.4040303@gmail.com>
 <4F9E3B4C.9040403@googlemail.com>
 <CAGj3215JT00bMEkHb9wq=BWiDDxQOm0eWWrz3mW8E2A77_ZxBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGj3216DLBgmkBnqUSb5Pr85tDfHJ3mKRx3yyeUT8crQAjv-fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksojzRb-Z0d2AWF4-yL6khm0uq7dj6GcHF8XWe3sBZY1=PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F9EDE5B.6080608@wtnet.de>
 <CACm2uJg4w1Niu+K7uKtpZ05-Hi19mEhK+U-XBZrdyJNauDV33g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F9F013B.4000206@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F9F013B.4000206@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>>> Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>  �wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is
>>>>> setup in the "old" way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build
>>>>> client downloads.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will
>>>>> they
>>>>> just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs --
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>> <root>/files/stable/<version>/
>>>>> <pack name>
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> <root>/files/localized/<language>/<version>/<pack name>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm hoping the answer is "YES".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and
>>>> for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not
>>>> something where it will be easier to clean up later.
>>>
>>>
>>> Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work.
>>>
>>> Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure
>>> that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release.
>>>
>>> However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this
>>> way, too.
>>>
>>> As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I
>>> wouldn't do bigger changes now.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a
>>>> 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful?
>>>
>>>
>>> The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big
>>> changes. For further releases see above.
>>>
>>> Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project,
>>> so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal.
>>
>> It seems the easiest way to go to me too.
>>
>> Roberto
>
> OK, I need some clarification here -- again.
>
> I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that
> the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but....
>
>
> we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK,
> we just need some awareness.
>
> So -- can someone tell me what's what here.

I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure 
in the beginning of this thread if it is possible.

That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a 
little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including 
the checksum files) for each downloadable file.

And it will work for future releases as well.

I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said 
that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have 
it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common 
consensus.

But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will 
start the upload tomorrow.

I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't 
know how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. 
That means I will use the structure that will work for now.

Juergen


>
> I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure.
> In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's
> changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance.
>
>
>>
>>> To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later for a
>>> release after 3.4.x.
>>
>>
>>> my 2 ct
>>>
>>> Marcus
>> ====
>> This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
>>
>