Hi Maho, Am Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:20:32 +0900 (JST), schrieb NAKATA Maho: > In Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Eric Hoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I'm doing is reduce the number of patches as > far as possible. Patches have # of issue tracker, and if exists, > cws name which patch was committed to. m85, there are two NetBSD/pkgsrc > specific patches, but they were gone.
Thank you for this explaination. I hadn't known all of that. I knew that you were building for Mac OS X and that you helped in the past fixing Mac OS X Bugs. > and what I'm doing is also very clear > just checked out from specific tag, and build with showstopper fix > patches, build logs are also available. I downloaded your build and the package which contained the patches and logs. Interesting. But unfortunetly I hadn't had the time to take a closer look but a first view showed me that I need more patches and different patches or that this is becaue I use different cws than you do or for whatever reason. Therefore we come to the point that you mentioned here: > Eric, do you think we need some authorized build machine > like Hamburg team and authorized configure argument, patches (hopefully 0) > so that we can sure and we make transparent process to move to the same > direction? To be honest. Yes. This is what I thought of. Maybe not a real authorized build machine (btw. does a macosx tinderbox exist?) but we need to make sure that we all who are building for Mac OS X use the same configure argument (as far as this is possible), the same patches, same cws to get the transparency we need to be sure to move to the same direction. Since Florian Heckl can join building again as of today and my tries with m86 got stuck in module configure I propose to wait for M87 and try to build it, if possible, the same way on your Mac, Florian's Mac and my Mac and if he has the time Eric Bs Mac. > then what we need? some people must keep OOo buildable for > some specific platform (IMHO this costs, since Hamburg team only concerns > about win/linux/solaris esp. in earlier development stage), and QA etc. I know that this costs and that we the Mac team don't get paid for this at all. For my OOo is sparetime. > Well, what Hamburg team doesn't do should be compensated by other > volunteers who act as a release engineering team. Right. > Currently I'm interested in pkgsrc framework, so that > we can reduce this effort as far as possible for ever platform other > than Windows (what a pity). I don't get this pkgscr framework thing. Do Mac OS X users need to install this pkgsrc Framework if they want to use your Mac OS X builds? Is is something similiar to Darwinports or fink? > From my experience as a ports committer > of FreeBSD, build from source using ports is quite popular, even each > milestone source takes ~250Mbytes, build time will also take 7h without > errors, but source code is downloaded ~150 times in just two or three days. > while my Mac OS X build of m85 is downloaded *ONLY* 16 times!! Strange. From what I get as feedback here in germany I always thought that OS X users want complete packages and not build their OOo and wait 7h or more till it's compiled. I mean even now that I have metapackages and a diskimage dmg and installing OOo is really only a matter of three double clicks (two if you have X11 already installed) Mac Users complain to me that installing OOo is a pain in the ass. I don't get it. iWork installs the same way. I get a CD and two packages which I need to double click. Where's the difference? Regards, Eric Hoch -- ## Ansprechpartner Anwenderunterst�tzung, users-Mailingliste, MacOSX ## de.OpenOffice.org - Office f�r MacOS X, Linux, Solaris & Windows ## Openoffice.org - ich steck mit drin! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
