Laurent Godard wrote:
Hi,
saying it's easy is easy ;-), i know that it is possible to extract
data and create for example a PDF. But the output isn't comparable to
what we have at the moment. Show me a working and satisfying solution
and we can discuss it.
Juergen, you know such a solution
Hi Jurgen
a working solution will probably have influence on the decision. We talk
here about a huge project and we don't make a decision based on some gut
feeling.
sure !!
but you may admit that the problem is a 'cricular reference' :-)
Btw, i may find some volunteers setting up a
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- - using non-free libraries like gpc
(thankfully now avoidable by --disable-gpc and using basegfxs stuff)
This is indeed ugly. Could basegfxs
Juergen,
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
we are currently evaluating if we can open source the guide. But i would
Can we help somehow?
Juergen
Kay
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Jürgen,
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We also thought about a transformation into the wiki but it is not yet
clear how we can extract the relevant info from the wiki to prepare a
usable guide (e.g. PDF) as we can it currently. Although a wiki would
have some advantages we currently prefer a
Hi,
saying it's easy is easy ;-), i know that it is possible to extract
data and create for example a PDF. But the output isn't comparable to
what we have at the moment. Show me a working and satisfying solution
and we can discuss it.
Juergen, you know such a solution is not yet set up
and
Am Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2006 18:17 schrieb Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg:
Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
We are going to ship no version of Mozilla...
No Mozilla at all? Neither Firefox nor Thunderbird etc.? Or are you
talking about the suite only?
The old suite.
Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=37034
So, obviously the Dev.Guide is non-free. I wouldn't say that OOo is
non-free because of this. In this sense, Debian can obviously
redistribute the OOo SDK without the Dev.Guide only.
That's what we do now but
Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 15:34 schrieb Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg:
distributions (not me) don't ship db4.2 anymore so they need to
maintain own
patches to use db4.3/4.4 which can't go upstream..
At least the numbering (minor update only) implies compatibility, so
what are
Rene,
that was a fast reply :-)
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 15:34 schrieb Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg:
distributions (not me) don't ship db4.2 anymore so they need to maintain own
patches to use db4.3/4.4 which can't go upstream..
At least the numbering (minor
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=37034
So, obviously the Dev.Guide is non-free. I wouldn't say that OOo is
non-free because of this. In this sense, Debian can obviously
redistribute the OOo SDK without the
Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 17:36 schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=37034
So, obviously the Dev.Guide is non-free. I wouldn't say that OOo is
non-free because of this. In this
Hi Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
(Not to mention you renamed the packages so that they are not parallel
installable anymore with the official debs, but that's another matter)
This is unfortunate. But, we can not really know and check all distros
package
Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
So, what are they saying that they do not update the older versions? Are
they backporting the fixes, or is Debian doing that?
There are not. There wasn't really firefox security updates except new
firefox releases with other stuff. Same with the normal Mozilla.
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2006 10:52 schrieb Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg:
Rene Engelhard wrote:
Yes, but then you still could have updated mozilla in-tree. it's still
1.7.5 there. Also the handling of issue
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66338 was bad.
You are not
Hi Rene,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:20:18PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Am Dienstag, 27. Juni 2006 13:58 schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:06:10PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Christian Lohmaier wrote:
That is as getting all your software from Microsoft, one single
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- - using non-free libraries like gpc
(thankfully now avoidable by --disable-gpc and using basegfxs stuff)
This is indeed ugly. Could basegfxs replace gpc completely?
This is mostly a question of test coverage. Functionality-wise,
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- - using non-free libraries like gpc
(thankfully now avoidable by --disable-gpc and using basegfxs stuff)
This is indeed ugly. Could basegfxs replace gpc completely?
This is mostly a
Éric,
Éric Bischoff wrote:
I - Good reasons
1) Suitability - Not all the Linux distributions follow the same purposes.
Some are for desktop users, some are for generic servers, some are for
specialized purposes like firewalls, application servers or clustering. Some
try to imitate Windows
2006/6/26, Éric Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 15:47, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit:
- OOo should not attempt to build its own packages, at least under
Linux.
Under Linux, that's the distributions' work!
This problem is related to the make install one.
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 21:33, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
? The user doesn't have to bother. Either they use the packages provided
by $distribution or they take the packages from vanilla OOo.
And the packagers who are doing the packages for their distribution
should know how to unpack
Le Mardi 27 Juin 2006 09:57, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit :
Yup. In my honest opinion, if you really want to build packages, it
should be done the regular way, on top of a make install.
That implicits, to be able to work as root on a dedicated machine, while
only wanting to
Le Mardi 27 Juin 2006 10:10, Janne Johansson a écrit :
Any package maintainer listening here to confirm or denegate what I am
saying ? I used to work in a linux distribution, so I think I can express
opinions on this topic, but some package maintainers might see that
differently.
I am
Janne,
Janne Johansson wrote:
If not for those reasons, then for the reason that zillions of other
opensource products happen
to have a unpack ; configure ; make ; make install routine well built in
into the spines of us
builders.
In general, it shouldn't be to hard to support the classic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ late answer, I needed time to *try* make my answer polite, sorry if that
doesn't happen all the time in this post, for the record I am one of the
two people making the Debian packages, currently the most active one of
both ]
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Lohmaier wrote:
That is as getting all your software from Microsoft, one single
Distributor.
This comparison is shit.
But on windows you can basically get every software from any vendor. If
it is labeled runs on windows XP, you can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
1) I think it just makes the life of OOo package maintainers in the Linux
distributions much harder. I suppose that they basically rpm-install the
OOo packages, and then repackage them. Or some might
2006/6/27, Éric Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le Mardi 27 Juin 2006 10:10, Janne Johansson a écrit:
Any package maintainer listening here to confirm or denegate what I am
saying ? I used to work in a linux distribution, so I think I can
express
opinions on this topic, but some package
Hi Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
ROTL. Not everything the LSB says makes sense. The OOo build system
*has* support for building debs. Use this.
This unfortunately does not work for people not building their own OOo.
A while ago it was planned (-Martin H.: any news on this?) to provide
.debs
Hi *,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:02:58PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[ late answer, I needed time to *try* make my answer polite, sorry if that
doesn't happen all the time in this post, for the record I am one of the
two people making the Debian packages, currently the most active one of
Hi Rene,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:06:10PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Christian Lohmaier wrote:
That is as getting all your software from Microsoft, one single
Distributor.
This comparison is shit.
Starts great.
But on windows you can basically get every software from any vendor.
Am Dienstag, 27. Juni 2006 13:26 schrieb Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg:
That's the distributions' issue.
EXACTLY
No. It's not. You mean that it's a problem for *you*.
I mean outdated packages in a distribution is _at first_ a problem
of that *distri itself*. That real outdated packaegs in
Am Dienstag, 27. Juni 2006 13:56 schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
You shouldn't have made it polite, but instead should have tried to
focus on the topic itself. (note that the thread is labeled with packaging
process...)
And it already drifted away a bit.
In any case, it is a no-no for a Linux
Hi Jane,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote:
2006/6/26, Éric Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 15:47, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit:
- OOo should not attempt to build its own packages, at least under
Linux.
Under Linux, that's
Hi Rene,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ late answer, I needed time to *try* make my answer polite, sorry if that
doesn't happen all the time in this post, for the record I am one of the
two people making the Debian packages, currently the most active one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
[...]
What I wanted to say with the introduction was that I tried to be polite
but as there was things you mentioned which are no-no for distributions
and you offended all Debian users I needed to make clear I
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Janne Johansson wrote:
2006/6/26, Éric Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 15:47, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit:
- OOo should not attempt to build its own packages, at least under
Linux.
Under Linux, that's the
Le Mardi 27 Juin 2006 14:14, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
I did not know that. So that would be equivalent to a make install?
Where is that documented?
There is some minimalistic info in the Hacking-guide in the wiki.
OK. Minimalistic info in some hackers guide.
On the other hand, make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
I cannot gurantee it. I wrote that mail in one go.
So, I suggest that you reread your mails before pushing the send button.
I do not have any tolerance for lazy mails (while I do not say that your
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 15:47, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit :
- OOo should not attempt to build its own packages, at least under Linux.
Under Linux, that's the distributions' work!
This problem is related to the make install one.
In my opinion, OOo is showing the right
Éric Bischoff wrote:
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 15:47, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit :
- OOo should not attempt to build its own packages, at least under Linux.
Under Linux, that's the distributions' work!
This problem is related to the make install one.
In my opinion, OOo is
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 17:40, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit :
Okay, we have diverging opinions on this point ;-).
Professional answer :-),
;-)
I think I had implicitly the hope that you
might be able to explain to me the motivations of the distributions, to
always rebuild,
Hi Éric, *,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Éric Bischoff wrote:
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 17:40, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit :
[...]
But, in the end, what is the difference between rpm-install and make
install (despite that some products may not be able to de-install
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 20:19, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
sigh
OOo as vanilla OOo doesn't have any external dependencies.
You don't need to install the rpms to repackage them.
rpm2cpio cpio or any of these archivemanagers can extract all the
files for you.
Yes. You can also install the
Hi *,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:51:23PM +0200, Éric Bischoff wrote:
Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 20:19, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
sigh
OOo as vanilla OOo doesn't have any external dependencies.
You don't need to install the rpms to repackage them.
rpm2cpio cpio or any of these
45 matches
Mail list logo
