Hi Claudio, On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:46:05AM -0200, Claudio Filho wrote: > Absolutely! I agree with you that René doing an excellent work and he > knows all inside the OOo/LibO packaging process!
Great to see we agree there! > What i (try) say is that we have a small number of people envolved in > this process. As you said, are 3 people for a *big* project. Think > this 3 people looking *two* bigs projects. IMO, I can't see how. The "small number of people involved" are not really the problem. The core issue is how bad OpenOffice.org historically was prepared for releases on *nix platforms, requiring huge amounts of fragile workarounds. At LibreOffice a lot of this stuff has already been simplifed upstream, there has been good (invisible to the enduser) progress here. The only reason packaging of OpenOffice.org was sustainable with the given resources for OpenOffice.org was because of the slow developement velocity and longwinding release cycles. Given the progress at LibreOffice, I think the motivation to go back to the messy, wasteful and fragile release process of OpenOffice.org (which is where AOOoI is currently at) is very limited for all current participants (who are all involved in some way in upstream LibreOffice development btw). > if I maintain a package and its project forked in two, i should choice > one branch too. I think that is impossible maintain two enormous > packages like AOOo and LibO. Given that LibreOffice is actively maintained, that OpenOffice.org is dead and Apache OpenOffice (Incubating) has not even released yet, I think there is an obvious conclusion from your statements. Best, Bjoern
