Phillip Rhodes wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Phillip Rhodes wrote:
1. What is the main problem with the build system as it is?
It's ugly. I recall you once built OpenOffice, right? It is not the easy
configure + make. Still, it works and the build system is not
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. What is the main problem with the build system as it is?
>>
>
> It's ugly. I recall you once built OpenOffice, right? It is not the easy
> configure + make. Still, it works and the
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>
> 3. Regarding Mac in particular, I'll repeat this question from an earlier
> thread: Does the ASF have Mac hardware for doing Mac builds, or are we
> dependent solely on developer machines for that?
>
Is there
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Phillip Rhodes
wrote:
> Forgive my level of ignorance here, but I haven't been a very active
> participant to this point, so there's a lot I don't know.
>
> In a lot of the discussion around this whole "retirement" thing (both on
> the
I was actually (mostly) joking about the OS/2 thing. Not that I wasn't a
raving OS/2 fan up until about 2000. But for AOO, I think the answers to
the other five questions are more important at the moment. Does anybody
have any commentary on those topics?
Thanks,
Phil
This message
Am 09/02/2016 09:24 PM, schrieb Fernando Cassia:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Phillip Rhodes
wrote:
6. Do we still build for OS/2? :-) (Sorry, I'm sentimental old fool).
please have a look here [1] and here [2] for newer OS/2 builds that are
indeed not part of