On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 20:53:44 +0100 Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> 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 source-package case. > > My reaction is that most (all?) linux/non-windows builders will be happy > > with the proposed .bz2 compression. > > Last time I had the occasion to see them, all normal file decompressors > for Windows (Winzip, WinRAR, 7-Zip) were able to extract a .tar.bz2 archive. My windows experience is way out of date, as instanced by my only knowing it handled .ZIP. If the default archive manager will handle .bz then there is no problem except user education; they may need to be told very positively that the archiver will handle that file type. Rory > > So, speculations aside, is there anyone who has a working stack for > building OpenOffice on Windows and feels it would be problematic to > extract a .tar.bz2 archive? > > > For them we ought make available a package that opens in the default > > Windows Archive Manager, whatever that is. > > 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 build process, so it seems obvious > that this is not an issue for Windows developers, meaning that this is > covered by standard tooling. > > >> MY OFFER: I will happily produce a signed, Windows-acceptable Zip for a > >> source release, using an SVN working copy of the released branch and > >> version. > > So long as we (as the project) vote on ONE single source package (the > .tar.bz2 one), I'm absolutely OK with you doing that. People who want to > distribute their own "unofficial" archive produced with their utility of > choice can do that. We can advertise it as a "convenience source > package" on http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html and store it on > people.apache.org. This is entirely possible. > > What we must avoid is that, in theory (since it practice it would be > interesting to know how many people do that), we ask people who vote on > a release to download 3 source packages, expand all of them (wasting > several GBytes of disk space) and ensure they are equivalent. If we have > one "canonical" source package, everybody knows what we are voting on. > Then we can have any number of "unofficial" archives in other formats. > > >> One produced on Windows for Windows should not present the > >> interoperability and interchange problems that other arrangements > >> introduce. > > No idea on this. Maybe yes, maybe not. > > >> I am going to appeal to the Apache Project Maturity Model because I > >> believe it is applicable here ... > >> I think the relevant considerations of what should be *strived*for* are > >> CD10: The project produces Open Source software, for distribution to the > >> public at no charge. > >> CD20: The project's code is easily discoverable and publicly accessible. > >> CD30: The code can be built in a reproducible way using widely available > >> standard tools. > >> RE10: Releases consist of source code, distributed using standard and open > >> archive formats that are expected to stay readable in the long term. > > bzip2 satisfies all of these requirements. We can ask dev@community if > you have any doubts. For sure, many Apache projects do not provide a ZIP > file (I admit they tend to prefer .tar.gz to .tar.bz2); no Apache > project that I know of distributes 3 source packages. > > >> My question is, on what platform were the troublesome Zips produced, > >> using what tools? > > They were done on a Mac, but this (like most of this discussion) is > entirely irrelevant. The fact that the .ZIP version has (probably) > issues is yet another reason to kill it, but my main reason is to make > it clear what we are voting on. > > >> I note also that Zip format is considered standard and open enough that it > >> is the format employed for the ODF packages used by OpenOffice > > Here other considerations apply, like decompression speed. But again, > I'm not proposing to drop ZIP since it's not standard. I'm proposing to > drop it since it's redundant. > > >> Although WinZip *will* unpack a .tar.gz (or .tgz) package, I do not know > >> whether it will unpack a .tar.bz2. > > Several years ago it did. I assume it still does. > > >> I notice that 7z does handle .rar and .msi and perhaps tar.* compressions > >> but I haven't checked those. > > If you want to try in practice, try with this: > > http://serf.googlecode.com/files/serf-1.2.1.tar.bz2 > > but I'm confident that you will be able to expand it on any machine > where OpenOffice can be built. > > By the way, that library is a standard requirement we incorporate in > OpenOffice, so any system able to build OpenOffice must expand it at > some point. This is the reason for me to assume that keeping only > .tar.bz2 is not an issue. But, provided we get consensus on wanting ONE > "official" source package, if someone has real arguments for preferring > .tar.gz over .tar.bz2, .tar.gz may work too. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
