openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package
Date Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:30:05 GMT
I have some afterthoughts about this,

 1. Because of line-ending issues, and the use of POSIX/*nix permissions or not, a Zip of
the kind mainly used by Windows developers and a .tar.gz/.bz2 used by mainly POSIX-oriented
developers (e.g., within Cygwin or on a Linux platform) might not be interchangeable.  (Note
that producing a .zip using a *nix utility does not always produce a result that is interchangeable
with Windows.  The best way to make a Zip is using Windows to do it)
    I do agree that so long as the code is not really buildable using a native windows environment,
one of tar.gz/.bz2 is probably the best choice.  The tar.bz2 is certainly appealing with regard
to the level of achieved compression.
    That's a pragmatic solution, not a community-building one [;<).  So be it.

 2. In my explorations of the source distribution, there is a different problem.  Under the
release policies, the tag/branch corresponding to the release, should provide the same files.
 That is not the case for the Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 source release.  However, on the SVN
the AOO412 tag includes an ext_sources and a test folder that are not in the source release
archive. That needs to be reconciled.  Also, the LICENSE, NOTICE, and README files of the
Source Release folders are not at the Tag.

 - Dennis

PS: I am able to Extract the 4.1.2 .zip and .tar.bz2 and obtain exactly the same set of files.
PPS: If I wanted to get native line-endings on native-Windows SVN checkouts there are many
more filetypes I need svn:eol properties on [;<).  The 4.1.2 zip source was definitely
not made from a native-Windows checkout.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:06
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package
> 
> I downloaded the tar.bz2 to see if it could be extracted on Windows
> using available tools.
> 
> The WinZip I use (admittedly an old version) does not recognize it.
> 
> 7z recognizes the bz2 and will decompress it as the .tar file.
> 
> 7z will then also extract the .tar if used again in a separate step.
> 
> The result from WinZip extraction of the .zip and the z7 two-step
> extraction consists of 60,955 files in 6,420 folders beneath the top-
> level 4.1.2/ folder either way.
> 
> I know that WinZip will do a one-step extraction of a .tar.gz if that
> extension is changed to .tgz.  I haven't determined if there is a
> similar modification for .tar.bz2 and whether or not 7z supports that
> and .tgz.
> 
> Note that none of these exercises involved reliance on CygWin or
> anything similar, such as MSYS2.  I did not use any command-line
> versions of the tools.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pescetti@apache.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 15:08
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package
> >
> > We currently distribute 3 source packages at
> > https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2/source/
> > 1) A .tar.bz2 file (209 MBytes)
> > 2) A .tar.gz file (276 Mbytes)
> > 3) A ZIP file (323 MBytes)
> >
> > The packages are equivalent, so any one would suffice.
> >
> > As discussed by Regina and Juergen recently, we ship #3 as a
> convenience
> > for Windows users but this leads to broken file permissions, so the
> > recommendation for Windows users is to use #1 or #2, which makes #3
> > useless.
> >
> > I suggest, subject to lazy consensus, that we only distribute #1,
> i.e.,
> > the .tar.bz2 file.
> >
> > Reasons:
> > * If we distribute one source package, it will be clear that we are
> all
> > testing and approving the same one
> > * .tar.bz2 offer better compression than .tar.gz
> > * bzip2 is ubiquitous today, so I don't believe that there are systems
> > capable of building OpenOffice which don't have bzip2 available
> > * better compression formats exist, but they are not as widely
> supported
> > as the three we are using now, so I'd stick with bzip2
> >
> > This of course doesn't apply to 4.1.2, which is already released and
> > will remain available in all three formats.
> >
> > Regards,
> >    Andrea.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message