You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2012/01/04 19:09:26 UTC
3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary packages?
Last week I posted a note pointing to a draft 3.4 release plan on the wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+Plan
A few of you have step up to volunteer for some tasks. This is great.
This is just a draft, so feel free to modify, add additional
high-level tasks, etc.
Some of the items on the wiki are not tasks for individual volunteers,
but things we need to agree on before we can release. For some of
these items, we should try to come to a consensus now, so we can
ensure that the plan accounts for everything we want to do.
So one item from the wiki: What platforms do we want to release 3.4
binary packages for?
With 3.3.0 we had:
Windows Intel MSI
Linux Intel RPM
Linux Intel DEB
Linux x86-64 RPM
Linux x86-64 DEB
Mac OS Intel DMG
Mac OS PPC DMG
Solaris Intel PKG
Solaris Sparc PKG
Do we want to do the same with 3.4? Add ports? Remove ports? We
obviously have active porting work around BSD and OS/2. Is the intent
to have them be Apache releases? Or to be released separately?
Personally, I'd temper "what we want" with "what can we accomplish
well". In other words, what platforms do we think we can cover, from
a dev and test perspective, so we can have a solid 3.4 release, one
were we can confidently ask the IPMC to approve a release, and be
proud to read the reviews? There might be one answer for AOO 3.4 and
an expanded answer for AOO 4.0,
-Rob
Re: 3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary packages?
Posted by Yuri Dario <mc...@mclink.it>.
Hi,
> Do we want to do the same with 3.4? Add ports? Remove ports? We
> obviously have active porting work around BSD and OS/2. Is the intent
> to have them be Apache releases? Or to be released separately?
I'm behind of schedule, had a lot of problems building Ooo for OS/2,
and now it still does not start, the extension manager is throwing
exceptions...
--
Bye,
Yuri Dario
/*
* OS/2 open source software
* http://web.os2power.com/yuri
* http://www.netlabs.org
*/
Re: 3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary
packages?
Posted by Paul Gress <pg...@optonline.net>.
On 01/ 5/12 04:08 AM, L'oiseau de mer wrote:
> If it hasn't currently a volunteer in Solaris Intel, maybe Andrew Rist
> and Mouette Yang (me) can do.
> But Solaris Sparc..... Mmm.... if anyone can provide Sparc Machine,
> we can help this platform.
>
>
Maybe I can jump in here. As seen in my other posts I'm attempting to compile AOO on Solaris 11, X64.
I have a Blade 2500 I haven't booted for a year. Maybe its time to set it up for AOO. Right now Solaris 10 is on it. I would imagine I need to download Solarisstudio 12.3 and go through the initial motions, plus more, as Solaris 11 has most of the libraries there by default. So after a successful compile in Solaris 11, X64, I'll take the plunge and see whats needed.
Paul
Re: 3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary packages?
Posted by L'oiseau de mer <oi...@gmail.com>.
If it hasn't currently a volunteer in Solaris Intel, maybe Andrew Rist
and Mouette Yang (me) can do.
But Solaris Sparc..... Mmm.... if anyone can provide Sparc Machine,
we can help this platform.
2012/1/5 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> On 1/4/12 7:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Last week I posted a note pointing to a draft 3.4 release plan on the
>> wiki:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+Plan
>>
>> A few of you have step up to volunteer for some tasks. This is great.
>> This is just a draft, so feel free to modify, add additional
>> high-level tasks, etc.
>>
>> Some of the items on the wiki are not tasks for individual volunteers,
>> but things we need to agree on before we can release. For some of
>> these items, we should try to come to a consensus now, so we can
>> ensure that the plan accounts for everything we want to do.
>>
>> So one item from the wiki: What platforms do we want to release 3.4
>> binary packages for?
>>
>> With 3.3.0 we had:
>>
>> Windows Intel MSI
>> Linux Intel RPM
>> Linux Intel DEB
>> Linux x86-64 RPM
>> Linux x86-64 DEB
>> Mac OS Intel DMG
>> Mac OS PPC DMG
>> Solaris Intel PKG
>> Solaris Sparc PKG
>>
>> Do we want to do the same with 3.4? Add ports? Remove ports? We
>> obviously have active porting work around BSD and OS/2. Is the intent
>> to have them be Apache releases? Or to be released separately?
>
>
> ok it looks that we can provide
>
> Windows
> Linux 32/64 bit + RPM/DEB
> MacOS Intel DMG
>
> Solaris Intel is probably also possible, correct?
>
> Solaris Sparc? Do we have a machine and a volunteer who would do the build?
>
> Free BSD, OS/2 later
>
> From my pov i would say Windows, Linux, Mac are mandatory, Solaris would be
> good but no release stopper for me. If Solaris would come a little bit later
> would be also fine.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>>
>> Personally, I'd temper "what we want" with "what can we accomplish
>> well". In other words, what platforms do we think we can cover, from
>> a dev and test perspective, so we can have a solid 3.4 release, one
>> were we can confidently ask the IPMC to approve a release, and be
>> proud to read the reviews? There might be one answer for AOO 3.4 and
>> an expanded answer for AOO 4.0,
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
Re: 3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary
packages?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 1/4/12 7:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> Last week I posted a note pointing to a draft 3.4 release plan on the wiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+Plan
>
> A few of you have step up to volunteer for some tasks. This is great.
> This is just a draft, so feel free to modify, add additional
> high-level tasks, etc.
>
> Some of the items on the wiki are not tasks for individual volunteers,
> but things we need to agree on before we can release. For some of
> these items, we should try to come to a consensus now, so we can
> ensure that the plan accounts for everything we want to do.
>
> So one item from the wiki: What platforms do we want to release 3.4
> binary packages for?
>
> With 3.3.0 we had:
>
> Windows Intel MSI
> Linux Intel RPM
> Linux Intel DEB
> Linux x86-64 RPM
> Linux x86-64 DEB
> Mac OS Intel DMG
> Mac OS PPC DMG
> Solaris Intel PKG
> Solaris Sparc PKG
>
> Do we want to do the same with 3.4? Add ports? Remove ports? We
> obviously have active porting work around BSD and OS/2. Is the intent
> to have them be Apache releases? Or to be released separately?
ok it looks that we can provide
Windows
Linux 32/64 bit + RPM/DEB
MacOS Intel DMG
Solaris Intel is probably also possible, correct?
Solaris Sparc? Do we have a machine and a volunteer who would do the build?
Free BSD, OS/2 later
From my pov i would say Windows, Linux, Mac are mandatory, Solaris
would be good but no release stopper for me. If Solaris would come a
little bit later would be also fine.
Juergen
>
> Personally, I'd temper "what we want" with "what can we accomplish
> well". In other words, what platforms do we think we can cover, from
> a dev and test perspective, so we can have a solid 3.4 release, one
> were we can confidently ask the IPMC to approve a release, and be
> proud to read the reviews? There might be one answer for AOO 3.4 and
> an expanded answer for AOO 4.0,
>
> -Rob
Re: 3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary
packages?
Posted by Malte Timmermann <ma...@gmx.com>.
Time to say goodbye to Mac OS PPC, IMHO.
Malte.
On 04.01.2012 19:09, Rob Weir wrote:
> Last week I posted a note pointing to a draft 3.4 release plan on the wiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+Plan
>
> A few of you have step up to volunteer for some tasks. This is great.
> This is just a draft, so feel free to modify, add additional
> high-level tasks, etc.
>
> Some of the items on the wiki are not tasks for individual volunteers,
> but things we need to agree on before we can release. For some of
> these items, we should try to come to a consensus now, so we can
> ensure that the plan accounts for everything we want to do.
>
> So one item from the wiki: What platforms do we want to release 3.4
> binary packages for?
>
> With 3.3.0 we had:
>
> Windows Intel MSI
> Linux Intel RPM
> Linux Intel DEB
> Linux x86-64 RPM
> Linux x86-64 DEB
> Mac OS Intel DMG
> Mac OS PPC DMG
> Solaris Intel PKG
> Solaris Sparc PKG
>
> Do we want to do the same with 3.4? Add ports? Remove ports? We
> obviously have active porting work around BSD and OS/2. Is the intent
> to have them be Apache releases? Or to be released separately?
>
> Personally, I'd temper "what we want" with "what can we accomplish
> well". In other words, what platforms do we think we can cover, from
> a dev and test perspective, so we can have a solid 3.4 release, one
> were we can confidently ask the IPMC to approve a release, and be
> proud to read the reviews? There might be one answer for AOO 3.4 and
> an expanded answer for AOO 4.0,
>
> -Rob
R: 3.4 Plan: For which platforms will we officially release binary packages?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mer 4/1/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> Do we want to do the same with 3.4? Add ports?
> Remove ports? We
> obviously have active porting work around BSD and
> OS/2. Is the intent
> to have them be Apache releases? Or to be released
> separately?
>
About the FreeBSD port: at this time I can't make any
promises that there will be a release. Somewhere after
3.4-RC, Oracle managed to break it from linking and
while some bugs have been cleaned up, the root cause
has been very difficult to find.
Only ydario@OOo knows about the OS/2 port but it looks
likely that it will be released separately too.
Pedro.