RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

12:06 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package > > I downloaded the tar.bz2 to see if it could be extracted on Windows > using available tools. > > The WinZip I use (admittedly an old version) does not recognize it. > > 7z recognizes

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: 1. one of tar.gz/.bz2 is probably the best choice. ... That's a pragmatic solution, not a community-building one [;<). So be it. Well, as we discussed so far, anybody willing to build on Windows has to download tools capable of handling .tar.bz2 anyway, and

RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 15:08 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package > > We currently distribute 3 source packages at > https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2/sour

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:01:16 +0100 Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > I can see one possible method to reduce the number of prebuilt binaries. > > This has nothing to do with this thread though. I'm sorry for choosing the wrong thread - I realised it was

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

I can see one possible method to reduce the number of prebuilt binaries. It would require reconsideration of the download server and of the installer mechanisms for each O.S. My suggestion is: Build only language neutral versions for each O.S. Modify the installers and the download server

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Rory O'Farrell wrote: I can see one possible method to reduce the number of prebuilt binaries. This has nothing to do with this thread though. This thread is about what to do about the SOURCE package, which is the package used by DEVELOPERS who for some reason want to build their own version

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Am 11/08/2015 12:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Thanks for bringing this topic again on the table. I remember there was at least 1 request to re-think the distribution policy about the source code files. And also to consider to offer a file with 7Zip compression. We currently distribute 3

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Am 11/08/2015 11:34 AM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 11/08/2015 12:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Thanks for bringing this topic again on the table. I remember there was at least 1 request to re-think the distribution

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Marcus wrote: > Am 11/08/2015 12:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > > Thanks for bringing this topic again on the table. I remember there was at > least 1 request to re-think the distribution policy about the source code > files. And also to

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 20:53:44 +0100 Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:51:07 -0800 "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > >> There is interesting discussion on this thread that devolves into what > >> compression to use as the single

RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 12:03 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package [ ... ] > > AOO build on Windows currently requires the us

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

ar and .msi and perhaps tar.* > compressions but I haven't checked those. > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > > Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 15:08 > > To: dev@

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:51:07 -0800 "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: There is interesting discussion on this thread that devolves into what compression to use as the single source-package case. My reaction is that most (all?) linux/non-windows builders will be happy with the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

Hi Andrea, +1 for your idea of only one source package. Andrea Pescetti schrieb: Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:51:07 -0800 "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: There is interesting discussion on this thread that devolves into what compression to use as the single source-package case.

RE: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

[PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package > > We currently distribute 3 source packages at > https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2/source/ > 1) A .tar.bz2 file (209 MBytes) > 2) A .tar.gz file (276 Mbytes) > 3) A ZIP file (323 MBytes) > > The pack

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

On 11/8/2015 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... Do Windows developers really use Windows' built-in utilities for unzipping? I really think that the minimal stack for building OpenOffice on Windows includes some .tar.bz2-capable programs. We do download and expand .tar.bz2 files as part of the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

On 08/11/2015 Marcus wrote: Puh, too many compression formats that do the same. ;-) Yes, there are at least a dozen compression formats better than .tar.bz2, but it's too easy to get lost in comparing them... So take this as a proposal to drop ZIP and drop .tar.gz ; then .tar.bz2 will be

[PROPOSAL] Distribute only one source package

We currently distribute 3 source packages at https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2/source/ 1) A .tar.bz2 file (209 MBytes) 2) A .tar.gz file (276 Mbytes) 3) A ZIP file (323 MBytes) The packages are equivalent, so any one would suffice. As discussed by Regina and Juergen recently, we