You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> on 2012/04/20 14:26:09 UTC
Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
OOo PPMC:
Several mirror operators have asked whether they are expected to carry
both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo mirror.
We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an AOOo
release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
Reminder: ASF's policy is that Apache mirrors may only carry the latest
release from each minor line (1.5.x, 1.6.x, ...) which is still
supported / developed by the community.
Cheers,
--
Apache Infrastructure
----- Forwarded message from Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> -----
> From: Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>
> Subject: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects
> To: Apache Mirror Operators <mi...@apache.org>
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:37:04 +0300
> Reply-To: mirrors@apache.org
> Message-ID: <20...@lp-shahaf.local>
>
> By popular demand, we have implemented an opt-out option: mirror
> operators that are unable to mirror Apache OpenOffice due to its disk or
> bandwidth requirements may do so by changing the rsync source from:
>
> rsync.apache.org::apache-dist
>
> to:
>
> rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-most
>
> http://www.apache.org/info/how-to-mirror has been updated to reflect this.
>
> Thanks as always for your continued support.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Daniel Shahaf
> Apache Infrastructure
----- End forwarded message -----
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 20 April 2012 13:26, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> OOo PPMC:
>
> Several mirror operators have asked whether they are expected to carry
> both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo mirror.
>
> We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an AOOo
> release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
>
> Reminder: ASF's policy is that Apache mirrors may only carry the latest
> release from each minor line (1.5.x, 1.6.x, ...) which is still
> supported / developed by the community.
It's not possible to ensure that the download page and all mirrors are
simultaneously updated, so AFAIK it has also been policy to keep the
previous release around for a few days before deleting it.
Thus mirrors will temporarily need space for both old and new versions.
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Apache Infrastructure
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> -----
>
>> From: Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects
>> To: Apache Mirror Operators <mi...@apache.org>
>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:37:04 +0300
>> Reply-To: mirrors@apache.org
>> Message-ID: <20...@lp-shahaf.local>
>>
>> By popular demand, we have implemented an opt-out option: mirror
>> operators that are unable to mirror Apache OpenOffice due to its disk or
>> bandwidth requirements may do so by changing the rsync source from:
>>
>> rsync.apache.org::apache-dist
>>
>> to:
>>
>> rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-most
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/info/how-to-mirror has been updated to reflect this.
>>
>> Thanks as always for your continued support.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Shahaf
>> Apache Infrastructure
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel Shahaf schrieb:
>
> OOo PPMC:
>>
>> Several mirror operators have asked whether they are expected to carry
>> both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo mirror.
>>
>> We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an AOOo
>> release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
>>
>
> Please have a look at http://ftp.rz.tu-bs.de/pub/**mirror/OpenOffice.org/<http://ftp.rz.tu-bs.de/pub/mirror/OpenOffice.org/>for example.
> There have a lot of stuff, that I do not see on Apache.
>
> I think, OOo3.3 (and earlier) should be available for languages that are
> not (yet) covered by AOO3.4 and for OS that are not supported by AOO3.4.
>
>
+1 ...this is an important point. We will have a subset of languages
supported with 3.4, so the transition to full 1:1 language support will
take some time during which we do not want to deny access to OO 3.3.
> Can those files be made available from http://archive.apache.org/**
> dist/incubator/ooo/ <http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/>?
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Shahaf schrieb:
> OOo PPMC:
>
> Several mirror operators have asked whether they are expected to carry
> both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo mirror.
>
> We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an AOOo
> release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
Please have a look at http://ftp.rz.tu-bs.de/pub/mirror/OpenOffice.org/
for example.
There have a lot of stuff, that I do not see on Apache.
I think, OOo3.3 (and earlier) should be available for languages that are
not (yet) covered by AOO3.4 and for OS that are not supported by AOO3.4.
Can those files be made available from
http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/?
Kind regards
Regina
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
> --- Ven 20/4/12, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> ...
> > OOo PPMC:
> >
> > Several mirror operators have asked whether they are
> > expected to carry
> > both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo
> > mirror.
> >
> > We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an
> > AOOo
> > release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
> >
> > Reminder: ASF's policy is that Apache mirrors may only carry
> > the latest
> > release from each minor line (1.5.x, 1.6.x, ...) which is
> > still
> > supported / developed by the community.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Apache Infrastructure
> >
>
> We are specifically warning people that the older OOo releases
> contain security and IP risks so it would be inconsistent to
> carry those in Apache mirrors.
>
> So, yes, those can be dropped.
>
> best regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
> ps. This doesn't relate to Regina's request to keep an archive of
> some older content.
>
>
I DEFINITELY feel an archive of older versions is important/mandatory --
though how far back I have no opinion on. It's great that these folks are
in contact! Yes, we do need to coordinate with some of them to make this a
reality -- i.e. keep older versions.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Women and cats will do as they please,
and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
--
Robert Heinlein
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Pedro Giffuni wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:41:19 -0700:
> Hello;
>
> --- Ven 20/4/12, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> ...
> > OOo PPMC:
> >
> > Several mirror operators have asked whether they are
> > expected to carry
> > both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo
> > mirror.
> >
> > We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an
> > AOOo
> > release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
> >
> > Reminder: ASF's policy is that Apache mirrors may only carry
> > the latest
> > release from each minor line (1.5.x, 1.6.x, ...) which is
> > still
> > supported / developed by the community.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Apache Infrastructure
> >
>
> We are specifically warning people that the older OOo releases
> contain security and IP risks so it would be inconsistent to
> carry those in Apache mirrors.
>
> So, yes, those can be dropped.
>
Thanks, I'll take that answer back to the mirror operators if no one
disagrees in the next few days.
> best regards,
>
> Pedro.
>
> ps. This doesn't relate to Regina's request to keep an archive of
> some older content.
>
I haven't seen that request.
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Pedro Giffuni wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:25:53 -0700:
> I don't think he suggested we force mirrors to carry
> old versions.
>
> I think Kay's (and Regina's) concern will be solved once
> 3.3.0 finds it's way into
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> And of course people can always choose to carry those
> older versions on their own if they want to.
I assume that's the consensus then. Anyone mind if I tell mirror
operators that they can stop carrying old OOo "now"? (despite
archive.a.o not having being backfilled yet with 3.3.0)
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
>> KS@apache.org wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 14:38:34 -0700:
>>> I'm assuming by Pedro's remark that if 3.3.0 is ported to Apache
>>> archives, security patches will have been applied -- i.e. THAT version
>>> rebuilt with security, right?
>>
>> "Rebuilt" kind of defeats the purpose of archives..
>
> I'd expect it to just be the current archive as well.
>
> Adding the need to have every 3.3 patched is an unnecessary prerequisite to mirroring 3.3 in the archives.
>
> Instead writing scripts and instructions enabling users to apply the current security patch on Linux is a separate task for another thread.
>
And it would be appropriate to have a warning on the page that links
to the earlier versions, along the lines of, "We recommend that you
run the most recent version of Apache OpenOffice in order to have the
most recent fixes, including important security fixes. An archive of
older versions of OpenOffice.org are made available for those who
require them for specialized purposes, but we recommend that all
general users should run the most recent version".
Something like that.
But eventually we might decide, as a project, that we want to maintain
more than one version of AOO. We don't really have that flexibility
with OOo 3.3. But we could, for example,declare that AOO 3.4 is a LTS
version that will be supported via patches or revisions, for some
period of time (12 months?),in parallel with AOO 4.0. If we want to do
that, then we would essentially have two "current" versions of AOO. I
don't think the LTS version would go to the archive mirror. So we'd
probably end up requiring twice the disk space, but approximately the
same bandwidth to cover that.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> (the same version number shouldn't correspond to more than one set of
>> source code)
>
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> KS@apache.org wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 14:38:34 -0700:
>> I'm assuming by Pedro's remark that if 3.3.0 is ported to Apache
>> archives, security patches will have been applied -- i.e. THAT version
>> rebuilt with security, right?
>
> "Rebuilt" kind of defeats the purpose of archives..
I'd expect it to just be the current archive as well.
Adding the need to have every 3.3 patched is an unnecessary prerequisite to mirroring 3.3 in the archives.
Instead writing scripts and instructions enabling users to apply the current security patch on Linux is a separate task for another thread.
Regards,
Dave
>
> (the same version number shouldn't correspond to more than one set of
> source code)
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
KS@apache.org wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 14:38:34 -0700:
> I'm assuming by Pedro's remark that if 3.3.0 is ported to Apache
> archives, security patches will have been applied -- i.e. THAT version
> rebuilt with security, right?
"Rebuilt" kind of defeats the purpose of archives..
(the same version number shouldn't correspond to more than one set of
source code)
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from
mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by "KS@apache.org" <ks...@apache.org>.
On 04/20/2012 11:33 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave;
>>
>> --- Ven 20/4/12, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> ha scritto:
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pedro Giffuni wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:41:19
>>> -0700:
>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> We are specifically warning people that the older
>>>>> OOo releases contain security and IP risks so it
>>>>> would be inconsistent to carry those in Apache
>>>>> mirrors.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes, those can be dropped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll take that answer back to the mirror
>>>> operators if no one disagrees in the next few days.
>>>
>>> I think that Kay just disagreed, but only on the ooo-dev
>>> part of the thread.
yes, I didn't note the other address...
>>>
>>
>> I don't think he suggested we force mirrors to carry
>> old versions.
>>
>> I think Kay's (and Regina's) concern will be solved once
>> 3.3.0 finds it's way into
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
Well, when I responded to this, I wasn't thinking about security
concerns *at all*. Hmmm...that DOES change the equation a bit.
I'm assuming by Pedro's remark that if 3.3.0 is ported to Apache
archives, security patches will have been applied -- i.e. THAT version
rebuilt with security, right?
>
> These can be pulled in from download.services.openoffice.org and MirrorBrain.
>
> Then MirrorBrain will need to change to use archive.apache.org as a source.
>
>>
>> And of course people can always choose to carry those
>> older versions on their own if they want to.
>
> Sure.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Apr 20, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Dave;
>
> --- Ven 20/4/12, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha scritto:
>
> ...
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>>> Pedro Giffuni wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:41:19
>> -0700:
> ...
>>>>
>>>> We are specifically warning people that the older
>>>> OOo releases contain security and IP risks so it
>>>> would be inconsistent to carry those in Apache
>>>> mirrors.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, those can be dropped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, I'll take that answer back to the mirror
>>> operators if no one disagrees in the next few days.
>>
>> I think that Kay just disagreed, but only on the ooo-dev
>> part of the thread.
>>
>
> I don't think he suggested we force mirrors to carry
> old versions.
>
> I think Kay's (and Regina's) concern will be solved once
> 3.3.0 finds it's way into
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
These can be pulled in from download.services.openoffice.org and MirrorBrain.
Then MirrorBrain will need to change to use archive.apache.org as a source.
>
> And of course people can always choose to carry those
> older versions on their own if they want to.
Sure.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Pedro.
>
>
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Dave;
--- Ven 20/4/12, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha scritto:
...
>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Pedro Giffuni wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:41:19
> -0700:
...
> >>
> >> We are specifically warning people that the older
> >> OOo releases contain security and IP risks so it
> >> would be inconsistent to carry those in Apache
> >> mirrors.
> >>
> >> So, yes, those can be dropped.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, I'll take that answer back to the mirror
> > operators if no one disagrees in the next few days.
>
> I think that Kay just disagreed, but only on the ooo-dev
> part of the thread.
>
I don't think he suggested we force mirrors to carry
old versions.
I think Kay's (and Regina's) concern will be solved once
3.3.0 finds it's way into
http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
And of course people can always choose to carry those
older versions on their own if they want to.
Pedro.
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Apr 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:41:19 -0700:
>> Hello;
>>
>> --- Ven 20/4/12, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>> ...
>>> OOo PPMC:
>>>
>>> Several mirror operators have asked whether they are
>>> expected to carry
>>> both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo
>>> mirror.
>>>
>>> We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an
>>> AOOo
>>> release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
>>>
>>> Reminder: ASF's policy is that Apache mirrors may only carry
>>> the latest
>>> release from each minor line (1.5.x, 1.6.x, ...) which is
>>> still
>>> supported / developed by the community.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Apache Infrastructure
>>>
>>
>> We are specifically warning people that the older OOo releases
>> contain security and IP risks so it would be inconsistent to
>> carry those in Apache mirrors.
>>
>> So, yes, those can be dropped.
>>
>
> Thanks, I'll take that answer back to the mirror operators if no one
> disagrees in the next few days.
I think that Kay just disagreed, but only on the ooo-dev part of the thread.
Regards,
Dave
>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> ps. This doesn't relate to Regina's request to keep an archive of
>> some older content.
>>
>
> I haven't seen that request.
Re: Mirroring both OOo and AOOo Fwd: [Daniel Shahaf: Opt-out from mirroring resource-intensive projects]
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
--- Ven 20/4/12, Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org> ha scritto:
...
> OOo PPMC:
>
> Several mirror operators have asked whether they are
> expected to carry
> both their preexisting/legacy OOo mirrors and the AOOo
> mirror.
>
> We're assuming the legacy OOo mirrors can be dropped once an
> AOOo
> release is Out There. If that's not the case, say so.
>
> Reminder: ASF's policy is that Apache mirrors may only carry
> the latest
> release from each minor line (1.5.x, 1.6.x, ...) which is
> still
> supported / developed by the community.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Apache Infrastructure
>
We are specifically warning people that the older OOo releases
contain security and IP risks so it would be inconsistent to
carry those in Apache mirrors.
So, yes, those can be dropped.
best regards,
Pedro.
ps. This doesn't relate to Regina's request to keep an archive of
some older content.