Mathias Bauer wrote:
Rüdiger Timm wrote:
Personally, I do not like spitting up sources at all. But that's my very
personal opinion.
Splitting up source definitely is a good idea. Maybe not for people
building everything anyway but it would be a huge step ahead for the
casual developer like volunteers, distro maintainers etc. And no, Solver
tarballs are not a replacement for this, they are yet another workaround
as I have learned when I had an email conversation with Petr.
So I definitely second the approach to split the source. The problem is
- as I reported in my presentation in Barcelona - that we have to rework
some libraries and even sources to move that forward and to effectively
gain anything from this. Currently we can achieve only a small benefit
but as always a large journey starts with the first step.
Sorry, I was not clear in my statement.
I am not against having the possibility to get smaller, logically
connected parts of the code base separately. What I do not want (and
perhaps that was a misinterpretation of the original posting) is having
different parts in different, distinct archives. I am fine with getting
parts out of one repository (currently this would easily be possible by
introducing smaller aliases than the big OpenOffice2). But I do not want
to collect the stuff from a couple of different repositories.
And please do it with care. When OOo started our code base got
'splitted' by creating projects containg several modules. I wish we had
not done that. Unfortunately that grouping has prooven to be not
usefull. Having just plain modules side by side would be by far easier
than what we have now. We should not do such things again.
Besides this, I do not understand how your proposal could work (see
above). So I would propose existing and well tested means to achieve
nearly the same goals. F.e., the build tool provides a possibility to
build distributed on several computers.
You always refer to your "always build everything" approach. There's
more than this. Having a huge monolithic project structure and
workarounding this by providing tools to tame the beast is better than
nothing but perhaps it's time to improve. The result will not make a big
difference for the "always everything" people but it will help others.
You are right, but that's what I've read in Jan's mail. He already
answered that I got him partly wrong.
So once reasonable packages have been defined we can think about
splitting the source also. The first preparations have been done (URE
split) or are under work (sdf split as you mentioned yourself). I think
there are a lot of reasonale packages that can be identified right now
where building them separately will work. I opt for helpcontent,
binfilter and all the applications.
And the next goal should be getting updated packages by just building
the source packages needed, not by always building full installation
sets. Can you imagine what a relief it would be not to build and pack
everything because you already have the binaries in your OOo
installation and only rebuild the Calc package because you only wanted
to fix a small bug in Calc?
Of course.
Of course to be able to gain something from this we also need
"development packages" for the OOo packages. So there's something to do,
Yes, that was my concern. Spitting code does not really help as long as
we do not provide corresponding binary packages.
but why not start? Of course I take it for granted that those suggesting
the change will help doing it. ;-)
My feeling is we should first do some work on our code base so that be
really can benefit from a split.
Ciao,
Mathias
Rüdiger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
