Hi *, On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM, tora - Takamichi Akiyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Being an software engineer, I would like suggest picking up Sun's > build rather than another one built by one individual. > > Sun's build > - Built by the professional release engineering team being > in charge for decades.
That's not always an advantage. At least on other platforms Sun doesn't do clean builds from scratch, but "incremental" build where they keep old output trees. This might speed up things, but also lead to unexpected side-effects/hide builds in the buildprocess. Furthermore: Mac is rather new for them. > - Capable of effectively investigating crash reports. Yes. > - Based on original source code. Well - how would you tell? Sun creates its StarOffice - so my guess is that they're not building official sources, but the StarOffice sources and only package parts that belong to OOo > - Capable of taking a responsibility as an organization. The software is provides as is, without any warranties. > - StarDivision and Sun are well recognized. > > Maho's build > - Built by one voluntary contributor working in this area > for a year or so. Wrong. Maho builds for Mac much longer than a year. 3 years should be more accurate. > - Less capable of looking into crash reports Yes. > - Based on original source code. Yes. > - Incapable of taking a responsibility. See above. Sun doesn't take responsibility either. It is the job of QA to ensure that there are no critical stoppers. > - Who is Maho? Who are you? Who is Pavel? Why does that matter? He is active for a long time. A very long time. Until a few weeks ago, he was the only source for packages for the Mac (apart from a few developers that build packages for themselves as well) Sun only joined recently. Previous releases were based on his packages. So if that wasn't a problem back then, why is it now? For PPC he is still the only source to obtain regular packages from. > This is beyond my area. But IMHO, if the OpenOffice.org community > can not be responsible to a binary, such a binary should not be > placed in the official mirror network. Why was it different with 64bit linux packages or linux/deb? Those came from Pavel for a long time, and there as well it was the responsibility of QA to approve the packages. Then they were put onto the main mirror network. Please explain the difference. [Fullquote removed] ciao Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
