You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Maho NAKATA <ma...@apache.org> on 2011/11/10 01:47:23 UTC
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Hi,
while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
agg and epm are still in svn repo.
is it correct? Should we remove them?
thanks
Nakata Maho
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/15/11 5:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> Hello Maho,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>>
>> epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
>> try BSD, etc).
>> Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
>>
>> --with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format="installed rpm"
>>
>> and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build.
>> IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
>
> i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier,
> correct? Did you have tried the system epm tool?
>
to be more precise, my question is related to Ariel's answer
Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/15/11 7:23 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 05:03:37PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> Hello Maho,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>>>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>>>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>>>
>>> epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
>>> try BSD, etc).
>>> Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
>>>
>>> --with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format="installed rpm"
>>>
>>> and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build.
>>> IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
>>
>> i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built
>> earlier, correct?
>
> so so. I took already downloaded the source, applied the patch and
> installed in ~/bin because...
>
>> Did you have tried the system epm tool?
>
> ... there is no epm in Fedora repositories, Ubuntu seems to have an
> epm package:
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=epm
ok, fedora is on my list of the systems (rpm based) to test, good to
know that no epm is available in the repositories. Or better not good to
know :-(
I will test it on fedora with a fresh downloaded epm from the webpage.
But i have to setup a build env on fedora first. If you are interested
in testing it as well, i can share my patch.
I was able to build on Ubuntu with the system epm 4.2. Well i have not
finally tested the debs but will do so asap.
The whole packaging process is not really easy to understand ;-) It
takes some time...
Juergen
>
> but OOo patch looks non trivial, a vanilla epm from
> http://www.epmhome.org/software.php or a system one may not
> work as expected.
>
>
> Regards
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jürgen,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 05:03:37PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> >Hello Maho,
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
> >>agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> >>is it correct? Should we remove them?
> >
> >epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
> >try BSD, etc).
> >Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
> >
> >--with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format="installed rpm"
> >
> >and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build.
> >IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
>
> i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built
> earlier, correct?
so so. I took already downloaded the source, applied the patch and
installed in ~/bin because...
> Did you have tried the system epm tool?
... there is no epm in Fedora repositories, Ubuntu seems to have an
epm package:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=epm
but OOo patch looks non trivial, a vanilla epm from
http://www.epmhome.org/software.php or a system one may not
work as expected.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
FWIW,
The problem we are seeing in FreeBSD is a bit weird, and I
think it has to do with the build environment (AKA ports
tree).
When built inside the ports tree, EPM and agg get built. We
are not not turning them on, they just build.
There are other issues: FreeBSD's gbuild stuff was not
really maintained or kept up to date by SUN and the
FreeBSD port does some *ugly* hacks to get things to build.
I am trying to fix those first with some (slow) success.
Pedro.
--- On Tue, 11/15/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 11:03 AM
> On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel
> Constenla-Haile wrote:
> > Hello Maho,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
> >> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> >> is it correct? Should we remove them?
> >
> > epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux
> (at least, didn't
> > try BSD, etc).
> > Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm
> building with
> >
> > --with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm
> --with-package-format="installed rpm"
> >
> > and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean
> build.
> > IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
>
> i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have
> built earlier,
> correct? Did you have tried the system epm tool?
>
> Juergen
>
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/10/11 6:03 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hello Maho,
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
>> Hi,
>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>
> epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
> try BSD, etc).
> Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
>
> --with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format="installed rpm"
>
> and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build.
> IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
i assume you use the patched version of epm that you have built earlier,
correct? Did you have tried the system epm tool?
Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 10.11.2011 06:03, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hello Maho,
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
>> Hi,
>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>
> epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
> try BSD, etc).
> Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
>
> --with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format="installed rpm"
>
> and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build.
> IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
>
I agree with Ariel.
Best regards, Oliver.
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@gmail.com>.
Hello Maho,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> Hi,
> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> is it correct? Should we remove them?
epm is needed to build deb and rpm packages for Linux (at least, didn't
try BSD, etc).
Now that copy-left is disabled by default, I'm building with
--with-epm=/home/ariel/bin/epm --with-package-format="installed rpm"
and I find it nicer than building epm for every clean build.
IMO it can be removed and made a build dependency.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi Maho,
Le 10 nov. 11 à 01:47, Maho NAKATA a écrit :
> Hi,
> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that agg and epm are
> still in svn repo. is it correct? Should we remove them?
>
If this can help, I know how to build Debian archives using dh_make
(this is the true debian way). The work is available as a script
under GPL license, but needs some improvement (was initialy written
by a student from epitech Paris, and I maintain it since one year).
OpenBSD needs installed (I completed OpenBSD build for OOo4Kids some
time ago).
The last issue is rpm, but I bet this is similar to dh_make.
On Mac OS X, everything is in XCode.
Windows needs nsis + some strange blobs
So at least epm can be removed from the repo, and kept (at the
beginning) as build dependency, why not.
About agg, I don't know exactly. I do builds without it, but I don't
know what is the difference. Maybe use system agg as dependency could
help if mandatory ?
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Maho NAKATA <ma...@apache.org>.
From: Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:43:19 -0800 (PST)
> I personally didn't plan to remove agg. I like it as
> option and license wise it's OK so I have no pland to
> remove it, at least for now.
I see.
> I did notice it's still getting built on our port and
> I have to look at why. I think when I attempt to build
> AOOo from the tarball it doesn't get built but there
> are other ugly issues with icu there.
Looks like a bug. But it is reasonable if I read the "configure.in". First, examine
enabling agg or not. quoting from configure.in
> AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to enable agg])
if test "$enable_agg" = "yes"; then
AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
AC_SUBST(ENABLE_AGG)
ENABLE_AGG=YES
AGG_VERSION=2400
else
AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
ENABLE_AGG=NO
dnl ===================================================================
dnl Check for system AGG
dnl ===================================================================
AC_MSG_CHECKING([which AGG to use])
---------------------------------------------
but then, checks for system agg even though ENABLE_AGG=NO.
thanks
> About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
> directory now.
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATA <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Maho NAKATA <ma...@apache.org>
>> Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: pgf@apache.org
>> Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM
>> Hi,
>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>>
>> thanks
>> Nakata Maho
>>
>
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
No need to apologize,
OOo (or AOO? ,looks like a tie from here), is a huge monster
and it's difficult to keep up with all the changes that
are in progress !
best regards,
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/11/11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/10/11 7:56 PM, Mathias Bauer
> wrote:
> > Am 10.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >
> >> ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't
> understand why you have
> >> checked in it at all. The update if necessary
> could have been done at a
> >> later time as well.
> >
> > You seem to misunderstand what Pedro did. "agg" was
> always part of the
> > source tree. IIRC Pedro tried to remove it, but then
> canvas couldn't be
> > built anymore. So he at least updated it as much as
> possible. IMHO a
> > good idea.
> ups, indeed i really thought it was handled as all the
> other external libs. Very bad from me that i haven't double
> checked my assumption before a wrote my comment. I should
> have been more careful.
>
> @Pedro, i apologize for my not correct comment and i very
> much appreciate your work. Maybe i had a bad day as well
> because some of the work on IP clearance we currently have
> to do is more than boring.
>
> Sorry Pedro
>
> Juergen
>
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/10/11 7:56 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Am 10.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>> ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't understand why you have
>> checked in it at all. The update if necessary could have been done at a
>> later time as well.
>
> You seem to misunderstand what Pedro did. "agg" was always part of the
> source tree. IIRC Pedro tried to remove it, but then canvas couldn't be
> built anymore. So he at least updated it as much as possible. IMHO a
> good idea.
ups, indeed i really thought it was handled as all the other external
libs. Very bad from me that i haven't double checked my assumption
before a wrote my comment. I should have been more careful.
@Pedro, i apologize for my not correct comment and i very much
appreciate your work. Maybe i had a bad day as well because some of the
work on IP clearance we currently have to do is more than boring.
Sorry Pedro
Juergen
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
Am 10.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't understand why you have
> checked in it at all. The update if necessary could have been done at a
> later time as well.
You seem to misunderstand what Pedro did. "agg" was always part of the
source tree. IIRC Pedro tried to remove it, but then canvas couldn't be
built anymore. So he at least updated it as much as possible. IMHO a
good idea.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Jürgen;
--- On Thu, 11/10/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> my main concern here is why you haven't updated the tar
> file with a newer version and used the same mechanism
> as for all other 3rd party libs.
>
There has never been any tarball for this. Maybe we should
move it to a third party lib but I thought the idea was to
move those in instead.
>
> ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't understand why
> you have
> checked in it at all. The update if necessary could have
> been done at a
> later time as well.
>
Time is something relative. I am very new to all this and
playing with this stuff that doesn't interfere with the
critical path served me to learn SVN and start understanding
the build system.
I've done other much simpler changes that are of huge
importance but this agg thing taught me a lot.
Doing it at a later time would certainly not be acceptable:
we don't want to move stuff like this the week before a
release!
...
> why not analyzing if possible to use it? As it is optional
> (default=disabled) anyway it would be much easier.
>
I could have it accept 2.5 but remember:
- This is not used by anything in the tree.
- We have the compatible version 2.4 already.
> > relatively easy.
> you can always ask if others can help. I can think also
> about much more interesting stuff but some things have
> to done at the moment ;-)
>
I will probably get to see what can be improved in the
configure script but for now let's just keep doing
what matters :-P.
Pedro.
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/10/11 4:09 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello Jürgen;
>
> I value your feedback on this issue, and I will explain:
>
> First of all agg as it is/was is not an IP threat and, in
> general, the rules on how to deal with all the other
> dependencies were not in place when I did the update anyways.
>
> 1) I updated it to version 2.4: this is the last version
> under a BSD license. It was supported by the internal build
> system so I doubt anyone complains about having it up to
> date.
my main concern here is why you haven't updated the tar file with a
newer version and used the same mechanism as for all other 3rd party libs.
>
> 2) I disabled it by default simply because it's not really
> used in the build. I doubt anyone complains about having off
> by default something that is not used.
>
> I also learned about, and killed, a header that supported
> the GPC extension which is not AL2 compatible,
>
> I cannot say this has brought any benefit at all but there's
> nothing counterproductive as agg was never really productive.
ok, drop counterproductive but i still don't understand why you have
checked in it at all. The update if necessary could have been done at a
later time as well.
>
> Now about --enable-system-agg; this option is a no-op as all
> linux/BSD distributions, that I know of, carry version 2.5
> of agg which is explicitly prohibited in OOo. This was done
> by SUN, not by me, perhaps because it's GPL'd now or maybe
> do to API changes, but it doesn't look like it.
>
why not analyzing if possible to use it? As it is optional
(default=disabled) anyway it would be much easier.
> I kept agg around because I think it's important to keep the
> last BSD-licensed version in SVN (if we remove it we can bring
> it back anytime) and because it may find some uses elsewhere
> (anyone in need of a C++ rendering engine, like for SVG? ;-) ).
>
> Further cleanage of the configure script (which I hate to
> manipulate to tell you the truth) or even removing agg is
> relatively easy.
you can always ask if others can help. I can think also about much more
interesting stuff but some things have to done at the moment ;-)
Juergen
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Thu, 11/10/11, Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Maho;
>>>
>>> I personally didn't plan to remove agg. I like it as
>>> option and license wise it's OK so I have no pland to
>>> remove it, at least for now.
>>
>> well the question really is why you have checked it in this
>> way and has
>> disabled it directly afterwards. That doesn't make any
>> sense and it was
>> counterproductive from my pov.
>>
>> It was initially handled as all other 3rd party modules and
>> we could
>> have dropped it and could have kept the option to use it
>> (if somebody
>> wants) with the option --with-system-agg. Default would be
>> to disable it.
>>
>> I think it would make sense if we follow all the same
>> rules.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I did notice it's still getting built on our port and
>>> I have to look at why. I think when I attempt to
>> build
>>> AOOo from the tarball it doesn't get built but there
>>> are other ugly issues with icu there.
>>>
>>> About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
>>> directory now.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATA<ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Maho NAKATA<ma...@apache.org>
>>>> Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: pgf@apache.org
>>>> Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM
>>>> Hi,
>>>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>>>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>>>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> Nakata Maho
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello Jürgen;
I value your feedback on this issue, and I will explain:
First of all agg as it is/was is not an IP threat and, in
general, the rules on how to deal with all the other
dependencies were not in place when I did the update anyways.
1) I updated it to version 2.4: this is the last version
under a BSD license. It was supported by the internal build
system so I doubt anyone complains about having it up to
date.
2) I disabled it by default simply because it's not really
used in the build. I doubt anyone complains about having off
by default something that is not used.
I also learned about, and killed, a header that supported
the GPC extension which is not AL2 compatible,
I cannot say this has brought any benefit at all but there's
nothing counterproductive as agg was never really productive.
Now about --enable-system-agg; this option is a no-op as all
linux/BSD distributions, that I know of, carry version 2.5
of agg which is explicitly prohibited in OOo. This was done
by SUN, not by me, perhaps because it's GPL'd now or maybe
do to API changes, but it doesn't look like it.
I kept agg around because I think it's important to keep the
last BSD-licensed version in SVN (if we remove it we can bring
it back anytime) and because it may find some uses elsewhere
(anyone in need of a C++ rendering engine, like for SVG? ;-) ).
Further cleanage of the configure script (which I hate to
manipulate to tell you the truth) or even removing agg is
relatively easy.
Pedro.
--- On Thu, 11/10/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hi Maho;
> >
> > I personally didn't plan to remove agg. I like it as
> > option and license wise it's OK so I have no pland to
> > remove it, at least for now.
>
> well the question really is why you have checked it in this
> way and has
> disabled it directly afterwards. That doesn't make any
> sense and it was
> counterproductive from my pov.
>
> It was initially handled as all other 3rd party modules and
> we could
> have dropped it and could have kept the option to use it
> (if somebody
> wants) with the option --with-system-agg. Default would be
> to disable it.
>
> I think it would make sense if we follow all the same
> rules.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> >
> > I did notice it's still getting built on our port and
> > I have to look at why. I think when I attempt to
> build
> > AOOo from the tarball it doesn't get built but there
> > are other ugly issues with icu there.
> >
> > About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
> > directory now.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATA<ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Maho NAKATA<ma...@apache.org>
> >> Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: pgf@apache.org
> >> Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM
> >> Hi,
> >> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
> >> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> >> is it correct? Should we remove them?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Nakata Maho
> >>
>
>
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/10/11 2:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Maho;
>
> I personally didn't plan to remove agg. I like it as
> option and license wise it's OK so I have no pland to
> remove it, at least for now.
well the question really is why you have checked it in this way and has
disabled it directly afterwards. That doesn't make any sense and it was
counterproductive from my pov.
It was initially handled as all other 3rd party modules and we could
have dropped it and could have kept the option to use it (if somebody
wants) with the option --with-system-agg. Default would be to disable it.
I think it would make sense if we follow all the same rules.
Juergen
>
> I did notice it's still getting built on our port and
> I have to look at why. I think when I attempt to build
> AOOo from the tarball it doesn't get built but there
> are other ugly issues with icu there.
>
> About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
> directory now.
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATA<ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Maho NAKATA<ma...@apache.org>
>> Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: pgf@apache.org
>> Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM
>> Hi,
>> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
>> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
>> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>>
>> thanks
>> Nakata Maho
>>
Re: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Maho;
I personally didn't plan to remove agg. I like it as
option and license wise it's OK so I have no pland to
remove it, at least for now.
I did notice it's still getting built on our port and
I have to look at why. I think when I attempt to build
AOOo from the tarball it doesn't get built but there
are other ugly issues with icu there.
About epm I don't know, I guess we can remove that
directory now.
Pedro.
--- On Wed, 11/9/11, Maho NAKATA <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> From: Maho NAKATA <ma...@apache.org>
> Subject: agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: pgf@apache.org
> Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 7:47 PM
> Hi,
> while porting AOOo to FreeBSD, pgf@ noticed that
> agg and epm are still in svn repo.
> is it correct? Should we remove them?
>
> thanks
> Nakata Maho
>