Well ... We need something that works now and basically something that will produce RPMs. Having something to do this is handy but should not a requirement for building. I think with just having it disabled by default we comply with the ASF policies.
All other packages that I know of just have an installation script and leave the packaging for someone else to do: for FreeBSD we use a script that calls tar (it's more portable than cp), and then we have some support in the ports tree to package that stuff automatically. Hmm... since you are apparently planning to further edit fetch_tarballs.sh, perhaps you can test my update to that script? (attached). cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > Hmmm ... > > > > Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. > > Unfortunately portable packagers seem not > > to be too common anymore. > > the point is simply that we have to understand the whole > packaging > process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's > possible to use > a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or > even obsolete. > But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the > 3.7 epm and the > patches we have because they are very specific for OOo. > > I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the > future a > little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. > In the past > all processes here were designed to make it possible to > build a > StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. > > The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to > understand > how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on > this > packaging stuff ... > > Juergen >
