Hello Mechtilde, Le 15 mai 2010 à 16:24, Mechtilde a écrit :
> Hello Charles, > > > Am 15.05.2010 14:24, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz: >> >> Hello, >> >> (I hope it's the right list to post this message) >> >> On Thursday and Friday Sophie and I met with the Ubuntu OOo >> maintainers. The topic was how we could enhance our cooperation in >> the light of the lower quality of the Ubuntu OOo builds. We also had >> the opportunity to discuss this with the Novell/Go-OOo team and we >> believe we have come up with a global analysis and the beginning of >> the solution. > > i hope you have some success. i try also to come in contact with the > maintainers of the different distributions in Germany. Good. We should have a tighter relationship with them, in general. >> >> Ubuntu does compile OOo from the vanilla source, using the ooo-build >> system and applying their patches in a non-systematic way. Which >> essentially means they get the worst of both worlds ;) ... > > I do the experience that the Ubuntu Maintainer also takes the patches > from Debian. and in the result the OpenOffice.org from Go-OO, from > Debian and from ubuntu are different. That is what I heard too, yes. > >> We pointed the Ubuntu team to the various bug reports we (in the fr >> project for instance) had received and how it was unappropriate, >> unpractical and not understandable for our users to differentiate >> between builds and branches. In any case it appeared that the >> reported bugs were not easily identifiable as having their roots in >> the build system, the upstream or the patches. We have therefore >> proposed two things : >> >> - that we open a new category or subcategory on our own IZ to enable >> a direct communication of bugs and issues between Ubuntu and us (the >> upstream project) - that the Go-OO team moves to our own IZ and that >> both branches get a common reporting platform, a common visibility >> (and perhaps a common treatment). > > At this time I take the Ubuntu maintainer into CC if I found out, that > something is an Ubuntu only problem. if we need a new (sub-) category > then we need it for all different distribution. I think this isn't > practicable. I think it is more important to communicate to get a better > quality in the distribution version. > > I'm very interested to take part at such discussions. I do think it's less of a problem than we might think. First let me just clarify that aside my Mac as a laptop, my main computer runs on Arch Linux so I am also sensible to the fair treatment of *all* the distributions :-) Now, there aren't really twenty different types of OOo versions for all the distros out there. So far, we have 4 different cases: - distros compiling OOo from the OOo sources using the Sun (vanilla) build system : Red Hat / Fedora comes to mind, but they configure it their own way; Mandriva used to have that as well for a time. - distros compiling OOo from the OOo sources using the ooo-build system and applying a more or less large number of patches from Debian and Go-OO (patches, in general, that is). (Ubuntu, Debian, etc.) - distros "pulling" our binaries directly. That's for instance the case of Arch that offers OOo vanilla binaries, OOo binaries for betas, OOo developer binaries and even Go-OO binaries, although it does never recompile them. - distros using Go-OO, which means using the source, compiling it with the ooo-build system by default or simply pulling the Go-OO binaries (see the case above). Here the Suse flavors come to mind; Frugalware and Mandriva as well. So we may not want to open a category for Ubuntu only, but for distributions in general: subcategories matching either generic types of distros or the build systems can be configured later. What do you think? Best, Charles. > > Kind regards > > > Mechtilde > > -- > Dipl. Ing. Mechtilde Stehmann > ## http://de.openoffice.org > ## Ansprechpartnerin für die deutschsprachige QA > ## Freie Office-Suite für Linux, Mac, Windows, Solaris > ## Meine Seite http://www.mechtilde.de > ## PGP encryption welcome! Key-ID: 0x53B3892B > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
