-----Original Message----- From: Pavel Jan�k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jul 25, 2005 8:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [porting-dev] [ Mac OSX ] some infos around m118
From: James McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:46:52 -0700 > to get a complete build. Only Maho is putting his information out to > the 'public' This is not true thus the rest of your email is to be ignored. ! Hmmm. Ok, I'll 'byte'. I will look at Eric B's FTP site to see if he has a set of build instructions for his last ! successful build and see if he has a listing of the patches he used. If I look around Maho's site, I find a file ! build_ooo.pl which lists, step by step what he did to build SRC680_m119, to include patches and what they 'fix'. > I'm working on building both the 1.1.5 and 1.9 branches and would like > to see them merge someday, if that is in the plans of SUN. Looks like you do not even understand the OOo development model. I hope nor Sun nor OpenOffice.org project have this on their plan ;-) ! I do have an idea what SUN is doing as a development model and it is much better than some of the software that ! I work with on a daily basis. What I meant to say, 'Is I hope that SUN merges back into the 1.1.x branches, ! improvements made in the 2.0.x branch that bring further functionality, after 2.0 is released.' What does this ! mean? I'm hoping that SUN does not leave those behind that cannot fully upgrade to the 2.0 version. Things like ! the ability to read ODT formatted files would be very nice. 1.1.x is old stable branch. We are all now working on the development branch to make it the new stable branch. ! I agree that 1.1.x is old. However, that does not mean that we should stop development in this branch and bring ! into it, features that will be in the 'new' 2.0 series. It is not the best time to be developing in that branch. I do ! agree, however, that the main focus should be bringing the 2.0 branch to the point where we can put up a release ! candidate quickly, so that others can find program problem areas that the development team can address and ! solve. This means a possible code freeze so that a maximum effort can be brought to finding and correcting ! program anomolies as soon as possible. > Why should we merge the old 1.1.x >branch with the new branch? Remember that 680 was forked from 645 in the >past so it can accept new developments. The purpose of 645 is to be >*stable* now. ! True, that is why I'm suggesting going BACK to 1.1.x AFTER 2.0 is out. Right now it appears that there is effort ! being used to put funtionality back into the 1.1.x (SRX645 branch) that is not fully tested on the SRC680 branch. ! I've been an advocate of sharing our efforts. What I see is an effort to 'contain' the build to one or two people, ! to the exclusion of others who may aid the effort. I found an error in the sequencing of the modules. I was ! almost immediately 'slapped' with the 'Sign the JCA or die' mentality. Sorry folks, I cannot, for legal reasons, sign ! the JCA. However, I did point out what needed to be fixed, which was confirmed by another and it is now part of ! the build, after another who had signed the JCA verified the error and suggested corrective code. James McKenzie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
