Hi Andrea,
+1 for your idea of only one source package.
Andrea Pescetti schrieb:
Rory O'Farrell wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:51:07 -0800 "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
There is interesting discussion on this thread that devolves into
what compression to use as the single source-package case.
My reaction is that most (all?) linux/non-windows builders will be
happy with the proposed .bz2 compression.
Last time I had the occasion to see them, all normal file decompressors
for Windows (Winzip, WinRAR, 7-Zip) were able to extract a .tar.bz2
archive.
So, speculations aside, is there anyone who has a working stack for
building OpenOffice on Windows and feels it would be problematic to
extract a .tar.bz2 archive?
You need Cygwin and tar anyway. So there is no problem to extract a
tar.bz2 archive.
For them we ought make available a package that opens in the default
Windows Archive Manager, whatever that is.
Do Windows developers really use Windows' built-in utilities for
unzipping? I really think that the minimal stack for building OpenOffice
on Windows includes some .tar.bz2-capable programs. We do download and
expand .tar.bz2 files as part of the build process, so it seems obvious
that this is not an issue for Windows developers, meaning that this is
covered by standard tooling.
Using a tool outside Cygwin is dangerous. Remember the file permission
troubles I had when building 4.1.2. If we don't deliver a .zip archive,
it is less likely, that someone uses a tool outside of Cygwin.
MY OFFER: I will happily produce a signed, Windows-acceptable Zip for
a source release, using an SVN working copy of the released branch
and version.
So long as we (as the project) vote on ONE single source package (the
.tar.bz2 one), I'm absolutely OK with you doing that. People who want to
distribute their own "unofficial" archive produced with their utility of
choice can do that. We can advertise it as a "convenience source
package" on http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html and store it on
people.apache.org. This is entirely possible.
What we must avoid is that, in theory (since it practice it would be
interesting to know how many people do that), we ask people who vote on
a release to download 3 source packages, expand all of them (wasting
several GBytes of disk space) and ensure they are equivalent. If we have
one "canonical" source package, everybody knows what we are voting on.
Then we can have any number of "unofficial" archives in other formats.
Having only one official source package would make the work flow and the
voting unambiguous. So I support it. I have no strong opinion whether to
use .bz2 or .gz. They are both easily to handle with tar in Cygwin.
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
