Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers seem not to be too common anymore.
Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > From: Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM > Hi Juergen; > > I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps > you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM > and has a better license: > http://www.openpkg.net/ > > And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those > packagers work with the new pkgng format. > > Cheers, > > Pedro. > > --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > From: Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> > > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM > > Hi, > > > > i would like to gave a short update. > > > > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 > (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a > > Fedora 16 system (rpm based). > > > > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It > seems > > that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that > are not > > accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. > > > > I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. > FreeBSD, > > solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go > back to > > use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. > > > > The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and > investigate > > to a later time in more detail into the packaging > process. I > > assume there is still some room for improvements ones > the > > process is understand completely. > > > > But at the moment i would like to focus and to move > forward > > with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool > and > > not part of a binary release or a source release. > > > > The idea is to download the source directly from the > > homepage and apply our patches and use it. > Alternatively epm > > can be specified directly with the configure switch > > -with-epm. > > > > Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful > idea > > that help us to move forward. > > > > Juergen > > > > > > On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > > On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> i am currently trying to build with a system > > available epm tool. And i > > >> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with > epm > > 4.2. Does anybody have > > >> built with a system epm on a Linux system? > > >> > > > > > > a short update on this topic. I was able to build > an > > office on an Ubuntu > > > 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. > > > > > > With disabling a packagepool process in > > instsetoo_native the build > > > finished and i got my deb packages. The > difference > > compared to an > > > earlier build is that the package names has > changed a > > little bit and > > > that i have directories with the same name in > the > > .../DEPS folder which > > > were probably the base for the packages. But that > is a > > minor issue i > > > would say. > > > > > > Anyway the installed office works and i have not > yet > > identified a real > > > problem. But that was to easy and i expect more > > problems on other > > > platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a > rpm > > based Linux system, ... > > > > > > I am no expert in this packaging area on all the > > different systems and > > > may be we lose the relocation feature or > something > > else. So if anybody > > > has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or > rpm > > packages and is > > > interested to help, please contact me. Any kind > of > > help is appreciated. > > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > > >
