On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jogischm...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.sch...@gmail.com>
>>>>> �wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> setup in the "old" way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for
>>>>>> pre-build
>>>>>> client downloads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <root>/files/stable/<version>/
>>>>>> <pack name>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <root>/files/localized/<**language>/<version>/<pack name>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping the answer is "YES".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and
>>>>> for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not
>>>>> something where it will be easier to clean up later.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure
>>>> that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release.
>>>>
>>>> However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work
>>>> this
>>>> way, too.
>>>>
>>>> As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO
>>>> 3.4 I
>>>> wouldn't do bigger changes now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a
>>>>> 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be
>>>> big
>>>> changes. For further releases see above.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old
>>>> project,
>>>> so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems the easiest way to go to me too.
>>>
>>> Roberto
>>>
>>
>> OK, I need some clarification here -- again.
>>
>> I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that
>> the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but....
>>
>>
>> we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK,
>> we just need some awareness.
>>
>> So -- can someone tell me what's what here.
>>
>
> I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure
> in the beginning of this thread if it is possible.
>
Your very first suggestion would entail *really* major changes right now,
so this is the LEAST of my favorite!
> That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a
> little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the
> checksum files) for each downloadable file.
>
> And it will work for future releases as well.
>
> I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said
> that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it
> in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus.
>
OK, I don't understand this last bit.
Please again take a look at to the current setup on SourceForge:
<DL url>/files/localized/<language-code>/3.4.0/<packages>
It would simplify our rollout if we could just stick with the current
structure on SourceForge. We will be using that as our primary DL mirror
for clients.
Marcus's alternate suggestion of :
<root-path>/files/3.4.0/...
<root-path>/files/3.4.1/...
<root-path>/files/3.5.0/...
seems like a good option to me as well, and you responded to this. But, the
least amount of change -- i.e. keeping the structure we have -- is really
the best at this point in terms of getting something done in a reasonable
time. Maybe we could discuss alternatives for *after* 3.4 in the future? We
are planning on a retool of the DL script after this, and incorporating
easier ways to deal with changes like this are high on the priority list.
Right now, we are planning on using SF for the majority of downloads --
typical clients -- and that structure -- good or bad -- is already in
place, and the test DL script is working based on this.
We will probably only use the Apache "dist" system for source.
So, in terms of how you setup things there I don't really care, but, of
course, we need information about that.
As silly as this probably seems to you, could we PLEASE just stick with the
current structure for now?
> But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start
> the upload tomorrow.
>
> I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't know
> how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. That means
> I will use the structure that will work for now.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
>> I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure.
>> In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's
>> changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance.
>>
>>
>>
>>> To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later
>>>> for a
>>>> release after 3.4.x.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> my 2 ct
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>> ====
>>> This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above.
>>> It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>>> distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly
>>> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
>>> notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any
>>> attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
