On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 19:41 +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote: > Hi Dave > > Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She > is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual > tester. So she is not a newbe at all. > > I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this > builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so > it's right to bring it on the list. > > What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it > self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same > mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with > Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. > > For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the > release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors > computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a > Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task* > > And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a > serios problem.
+1 and just to confirm - I'm using Ariels builds because they work, and I have not been able to say the same about the builds from the buildbot so far. > > Greetings Raphael > Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher: > > Hi Mechtilde, > > > > There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they > > are discussed. > > > > Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php > > > > Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. > > > > Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on > > buildbots for several platforms. > > > > Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 > > > > I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it > > and let people know... > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Hello Jürgen, > >> > >> > >> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: > >>> Hi Mechtilde, > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<o...@mechtilde.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute > >>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. > >>> > >>> But: > >>> > >>> What should a user do? > >>> > >>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for > >>> testing. > >>> > >>> The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ > >>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. > >>> > >>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As > >>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. > >>> > >>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? > >>> > >>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. > >>> > >>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries > >>> to test from "official" build maschines. > >>> > >>> > >>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We > >>>> don't > >>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a > >>>> lot > >>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as > >>>> possible. > >> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on > >> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build > >>>> for > >>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is > >>>> much > >>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... > >> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test > >> it before a release. > >> > >>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot > >>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And > >>>> it > >>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That > >>>> would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update > >>>> on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) > >> It depends on the based distribution. > >> > >> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of > >> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. > >> > >>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases > >>>> and > >>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing > >>>> purposes. > >> That's what I ask for. > >> > >>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to > >>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release > >>>> process > >>>> over time. > >> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache? > >> > >> Thats my question > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> > >> Mechtilde > >> > >> > >>>> Juergen > >>> > >>> > >>> Kind Regards > >>> > >>> Mechtilde > >>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > >> > >> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG > >> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe > >> =ulAm > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > >
