On 19.08.2011 15:10, Ingrid von der Mehden wrote: > Directly after import is fine. There was consensus on that already. But > if we don't discuss the name change now, we need another couple of weeks > and the moment directly after import will have gone. So do you have > different names in mind?
Nothing that sounds better. If we split up "extras" in the "main" repo, my main concern would be solved anyway, so I would be fine with "main" and "extras" in that case. > Good question regarding 'minimal' and 'regular'. I am not totally > decided. Is there a way to have both? For the day to day development I > think an easy and fast way to build a minimal office would be the > greater benefit. But that demand might clash with demands from QA side ... >From the build environment POV you definitely can have both, in case we taught "instsetoo_native" and "postprocess" that e.g. a build without help content, extras etc. is valid. Not a big deal, but someone has to do it. Our build system concept also had a different idea for how developers should work with OOo: the build already should have created a runnable instance of OOo, no packaging required. In that case you can build whatever you want, with extras or without, if it runs it is usable for developers. >> The new build system is capable of >> working with several (sub-)repositories, the old one still needs the >> "source_config" crutch. > > Yes, I now found for the new system there is the environment variable > gb_REPOS which takes the list of repos. Lets assume it contains the two > repos 'main' and 'extras'. What happens if the directory 'extras' is not > present? Does the build abort with error, or does it continue with > warning? Can we make it so that it does continue with a gentle note? As gbuild already has shown that it works without code changes with or without "l10n" repo, this is not a problem. I don't remember the details, but we can look that up when necessary. Regards, Mathias
