On 01/24/17 , Marcus wrote:
Am 24.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure so I
will ask here:
I don't know every ASF policy. But I would guess it's up to the PMC to
define it. And we don't have a formal procedure.
Yes, I was wondering if there was some OOo guidelines we could follow.
But I think we should agree commonly what "supported platform" means and
what we understand. So, a short list of requirements would be helpful.
This will then be put into the Wiki for future reference.
FreeBSD is AFAICT, the only OS that ships AOO in it's official releases,
we have also been adding new features including (recently) support for
the PowerPC. This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases,
although we have a buildbot and I would expect, and it fact it happens,
that there is developer diligence in fixing breakages it detects.
Here I see some points for the requirements list. And "supported" could
mean it's not automatically available for download.
Well, I understand Apache Projects define binaries as release
"artifacts" and not part of a a release itself. What matters is the
sourcecode release, so technically speaking binary releases are not
critical.
There's also the issue that we don't (yet) support reproducible builds,
so even if we sign binaries, our binaries are not trustable.
Would anyone have some insight about any particular policy within the
project, or perhaps can I go ahead and add FreeBSD to the list for 4.2?
I see it as what Andrea and Matthias wrote so far. But I would say,
let's discuss what we want.
I agree with Andrea that there are different levels of what one could
consider "support". If we just consider our capacity to generate
binaries and test them, I would say both OS/2 an MacOS X are under risk
of becoming unsupported in the near future.
BTW:
Offering binary builds for FreeBSD doesn't make sense as the normal way
would be to get the OpenOffice as source (the so-called ports) from a
FreeBSD server, compile it yourself and then just use it. So,
downloading and installing binaries is not the normal way. Do I remember
right?
I certainly don't want/need binary releases for FreeBSD. "Support" in
FreeBSD's case would be something mostly symbolical, an indication
that OpenOffice in FreeBSD is expected to perform as well as in linux.
A parallel question is what supporting officially a platform involves:
it would mean we are willing to issue CVE's if the platform is affected,
and perhaps also that an error on such selected platforms may be
considered a release blocker. We don't really follow any of those
criteria for OS/2, and when 4.2.0 was discussed we were about to
overrule the later for MacOS X.
As food for thought: my guess is that supporting officially a platform
should also merit some specific field when reporting bugs in bugzilla.
Just my $0.02,
Pedro.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
