You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by eric b <er...@free.fr> on 2011/06/05 10:09:10 UTC
OpenOffice.org dependencies at runtime. was: Re: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Hi,
First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.
Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to
follow.
Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
> I was thinking about binary-only components such as a linker
> library or shared library that was under a non-Apache license but
> that needed to be included in deployments of OpenOffice.org.
As builder / dev since years in OOo, we separated
- build dependencies : the builder MUST install something to make the
build possible.
- install dependencies : the user must install something to be sure
OpenOffice.org will launch and work correctly
I suppose we are talking about the second one.
If in this case, and if this can be helpfull for you, the policy for
external code was handled by external project -> http://
external.openoffice.org/
Martin Hollmichel (Sun / Oracle employee the last time I've heard of)
is IMHO the one to be contated for further information.
Back to install time now. More basicaly, we currently have :
1) Windows
Windows build, is provided as a set, auto-installable : no need to
link to anything else, the set is linked to system dll only.
Nothing must be installed so far, excepted Java, but Java missing is
not an issue.
Please somebody correct me if Im wrong.
2) Mac OS X
Since we removed as much as possible to any dependencies (I was one
of the actor of this cleanup), the set is currently provided as disk
image, containing everything.
Java is the one shipped on the system, and if ever Java is not
installed, OpenOffice.org will work anyway (some features missing only).
3) Linux
It is very easy to provide a standalone product, without the need to
use other system binaries, and I confirm this is possible. The facts
are different : to avoid as much as possible to have the same libs/
binaries in the installed set (avoiding twice installation of the
same dependencies), it is common to link wiht system libraries and
binaries at buildtime, considering the user will have to install the
dependency himself. This is the same for a lot of applications on
Debian, e.g. and make the full installation lighter.
Please not this is true for a majority of Linux's but there could be
one excpetion I'm not aware.
4) FreeBSD and OpenBSD do the same (I wrote a ports makefile for
OpenBSD, and things are similar)
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
5) Solaris
I don't know
> That would require a different version of the binary-only component
> for every platform environment the Apache code is expected to build
> for and deploy to.
>
I don't think this is mandatory at all, but I can be wrong.
> Since OpenOffice.org code is mostly C++ and the trend is to remove
> the Java dependencies (at least over on LibreOffice), this seems
> more awkward than whatever the benefit might be.
>
I already removed all Java dependencies in OOo4Kids and OOoLight in
OpenOffice.org for all ports, and that's not a problem.
> I need to step back and look at this more carefully. My starting-
> out assumptions are that OpenOffice.org builds don't depend on
> binary-only components in deployed distributions.
I think so too, but I agree a clear choice must be made very soon.
> In addition, I'm trusting that any dependencies on third-party
> source code or binary libraries are either non-toxic, can be worked-
> around/done-without for as long as we'd need to have an alternative
> in place. Whistling in the dark here ...
>
Hope my mail will help you.
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: OpenOffice.org dependencies at runtime. was: Re: OO/LO
License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 05/06/2011 Nick Kew wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2011, at 09:25, eric b wrote:
> > Apologies, the most up to date information is here :
> > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/External/Modules
> Thanks for that.
> Looks like there's some LGPL stuff but no strong copyleft.
Most dictionaries are missing from the list. They are in many cases
covered by strong copyleft licenses (the Italian dictionary, that I
currently maintain, is GPL3) and they are currently included thanks to
the "mere aggregation" clause, see
http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
To make the "mere aggregation" more explicit (i.e., show that
OpenOffice.org can work without dictionaries), dictionaries are now
packaged as extensions even when they come bundled with OpenOffice.org.
Dictionaries aren't a dependency in the strict meaning of this term, but
they are vital for anyone wishing to use OpenOffice.org.
Regards,
Andrea Pescetti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org dependencies at runtime. was: Re: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@apache.org>.
On 5 Jun 2011, at 09:25, eric b wrote:
> Apologies, the most up to date information is here : http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/External/Modules (the previous link looks outdated)
Thanks for that.
Looks like there's some LGPL stuff but no strong copyleft.
--
Nick Kew
Available for work, contract or permanent
http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org dependencies at runtime. was: Re: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Le 5 juin 11 à 10:09, eric b a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
> First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.
>
> Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to
> follow.
>
>
> Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
>
>> I was thinking about binary-only components such as a linker
>> library or shared library that was under a non-Apache license but
>> that needed to be included in deployments of OpenOffice.org.
>
>
>
> As builder / dev since years in OOo, we separated
>
> - build dependencies : the builder MUST install something to make
> the build possible.
> - install dependencies : the user must install something to be sure
> OpenOffice.org will launch and work correctly
>
> I suppose we are talking about the second one.
>
> If in this case, and if this can be helpfull for you, the policy
> for external code was handled by external project -> http://
> external.openoffice.org/
> Martin Hollmichel (Sun / Oracle employee the last time I've heard
> of) is IMHO the one to be contated for further information.
>
Apologies, the most up to date information is here : http://
wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/External/Modules (the previous
link looks outdated)
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news