RE: A little OOo history - and lining up our arrows

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

I am personally quite fond of this kernel.org-style idea.  

It is consistent with focused attention on ensuring a rock-solid reference implementation for ODF-native office-productivity software (and reusable components) while allowing its confident use in building user-facing distributions to a wide variety of target communities.  Those distribution producers will also help us assure that the code is successfully portable.

 - Dennis

PS: It might be good not to call that OpenOffice.org, and we should have it even if for some reason we perpetuate full-up OpenOffice.org distros too. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Danese Cooper [mailto:danese@gmail.com] 
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c97341EB4-C544-46CB-B760-96C5FB11B220@gmail.com%3e>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:00
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A little OOo history

Hi Phil,

IMHO we would have to roll vanilla builds just to make sure it still builds when we declare a version. It used to take some iterations and tweaks per version to get a valid build (imagine that's still true). ASF should at least validate "buildability" as part of servicing the codebase, but I would assume effectively zero consumer end-users would get their software from us...

[ ... ]

>> This complexity is one of the reasons it 
>> might be a good idea to behave like kernel.org and let OOo "distros" 
>> handle end-user packaging and distribution. 

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org