On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2012 drew jensen wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 08:37 +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> >>> This is not being ignored: there is a lot of useful information at >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594 >> >> You are kidding right - of course it has been and is being ignored. > > > Hi Drew, > indeed it's not top priority, but I'd tend to have a slightly more > optimistic view: just because the issue has been mostly inactive for years, > this doesn't mean it will be inactive for years to come; and at least in > this case developers took pains to explain in detail why the port is not as > trivial as it would seem.
Priority is the key. Or better, priority for who? With IBM Lotus Symphony we didn't create a native 64-bit Windows either. Not a #1 priority for us. But the Apache OpenOffice community can support a diverse set of priorities. See how have BSD, OS/2 and OpenSolaris ports. All of these are ignored by the major vendors, and even by other open source projects. If a developer really wants to make 64-bit Windows work, they would probably succeed. Everything is undone until it is attempted. -Rob > Regards, > Andrea. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-h...@incubator.apache.org
