Stephan Bergmann wrote over at [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
Following up on various threads regarding (diverse) packaging issues
(e.g., [1]--[4]), I would like to set up an IRC meeting to discuss
things further. We already had two similar, rather informal meetings
over here at Sun Hamburg over the last few months, and Martin Hollmichel
rightly pointed out that it would be about time to hold the next such
meeting in public.
I schedule this for Friday, November 2, 2007, 9:00--10:00 UTC
(10:00--11:00 MET) on irc://freenode/ooopackaging. Sorry for the short
notice.
-Stephan
[1] http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/bits2boxes
[2] http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/repackaging_in_installation_project
[3] http://marketing.openoffice.org/ooocon2007/programme/wednesday_138.odp
[4] http://marketing.openoffice.org/ooocon2007/programme/friday_45.odp
The protocoll:
[2007-11-02 09:41:05] -->| kr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:50:01] -->| thorstenziehm
([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-9a5f7a9ccab2abe4) has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:50:08] -->| paveljanik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/paveljanik)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:50:20] <paveljanik> Moin
[2007-11-02 09:53:18] -->| mhu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-ebacb93ed5d9ae8f)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:58:18] <kr> The count down is running .... :-)
[2007-11-02 09:58:25] -->| is1 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-c56f5cb0ed1248da) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:58:35] -->| Andre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-37b815c99c558c23)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:58:55] -->| obr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-d5c97ad642a6ee6a) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 09:59:09] <obr> Moin
[2007-11-02 09:59:44] =-= mdamboldt_away is now known as mdamboldt
[2007-11-02 09:59:53] <mdamboldt> Hi
[2007-11-02 09:59:56] -->| kendy_ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/suse/x-9546e01f20beaf44)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:00:03] <kendy_> Hi!
[2007-11-02 10:00:08] <sb> Good morning everyone. I scheduled this
meeting so we can talk about all the packaging-related things that are
going on and issues that are bothering people. Maybe we can take turns
in *shortly* stating positions...
[2007-11-02 10:00:23] <mhu> hi all
[2007-11-02 10:00:32] <Andre> Hi
[2007-11-02 10:00:43] <is1> Hi all
[2007-11-02 10:00:47] <kr> Who is going to start?
[2007-11-02 10:01:00] <sb> I can go ahead.
[2007-11-02 10:01:07] <kr> please ...
[2007-11-02 10:01:36] <sb> I started working on packaging some time ago,
with is and kr.
[2007-11-02 10:02:13] <sb> We concentrate on producing new package
output that minimizes differences across products, platforms, etc.
[2007-11-02 10:02:49] <sb> We currently do not concentrate on any build
time issues, though we know that is a worthwhile area to tackle, too.
[2007-11-02 10:02:51] <sb> .
[2007-11-02 10:03:13] <sb> Next please
[2007-11-02 10:03:18] -->| tml_ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has joined
#ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:03:33] <kendy_> Hi, I'm here for the SUSE packaging needs ;-)
[2007-11-02 10:03:37] -->| lutzh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-573fad4403f06351) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:03:55] <lutzh> hi
[2007-11-02 10:04:05] <kendy_> Basically, we already split the built
packages, and now we need to split the sources so that it better matches
with the binary ones.
[2007-11-02 10:04:14] <kendy_> Our primary needs ane:
[2007-11-02 10:04:37] <kendy_> - be able to build the -noarch
packages once for each architectures
[2007-11-02 10:05:02] <kendy_> - be able to build libraries and apps
independently because of the security updates
[2007-11-02 10:05:08] <kendy_> Next please :-)
[2007-11-02 10:05:30] <is1> Hi, I already started and including some
changes in repackaging
[2007-11-02 10:05:35] <kendy_> s/each architectures/all architectures/ 2
lines above ;-)
[2007-11-02 10:05:59] -->| Malte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-a8e99f1fcf3ca112)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:06:03] <mhu> I'm observer / advisor for implied
architectural issues
[2007-11-02 10:06:10] <mhu> next please
[2007-11-02 10:06:12] <tml_> hello. my perspective is (building and)
packaging Novell's Windows build
[2007-11-02 10:07:04] <tml_> I agree with kendy_ that it would be great
if the architecture-independent parts would be built just once and even
downloadable prebuilt? (especially those which take a lot of time, like
helpcontent2, although that has improved lately)
[2007-11-02 10:07:30] <tml_> (or is helpcontent2 actually noarch?)
[2007-11-02 10:07:33] <paveljanik> I'm also observing here - my main
goal is to separate localizable contents and make it really
arch-independent (language packs as arch. independent extensions, ...)
[2007-11-02 10:07:45] <paveljanik> tml_: it is not, but it should be.
[2007-11-02 10:08:04] <obr> I am trying to find out if there is some
need for the Mac port to switch to apple pkg(s) or if we could stay with
drag-and-drop install
[2007-11-02 10:08:37] <kr> I may mention that one of the things we would
like to change wrt the packaging structure is to separate brand,
language and URE, so this seems to match with your expectations
[2007-11-02 10:09:01] <mdamboldt> Hi, I'm one of the Program Managers at
Sun for OpenOffice.org / StarOffice.
[2007-11-02 10:09:02] <paveljanik> kr: yes :-)
[2007-11-02 10:09:02] <mdamboldt> Thus I've a "natural" interest in
topics like this :)
[2007-11-02 10:09:12] |<-- lutzh has left freenode (Nick collision from
services.)
[2007-11-02 10:09:13] <thorstenziehm> my team made and will make doing
QA for all these changes => a big job, because we do not get new
feature, we have to check the general stability of all feature in the
whole office and this take a lot of time for each change (CWS)
[2007-11-02 10:09:51] -->| lutzh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-89a9b285f31a0ac7) has
joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:10:33] <Andre> Hi, I'm Program Manager at Sun and on
various project infuenced by the packaging, so I need to understand :-)
[2007-11-02 10:11:11] <sb> OK. How shall we proceed? Any specific
issues anybody wants to address?
[2007-11-02 10:11:51] <obr> Another interesting topic to discuss would
IMO be if/how vanilla OOo could get rid of the 3rd party libraries it
currently ships
[2007-11-02 10:11:54] <mhu> sb: a short status update e
[2007-11-02 10:12:09] <mhu> sb: ...would be fine
[2007-11-02 10:12:33] <sb> OK, status update:
[2007-11-02 10:13:36] <sb> First thing was to enable OOo code to split
installation sets on disks into two trees, one containing URE and the
other the rest. Then, we can share one URE installation across
different product installations that use it.
[2007-11-02 10:14:02] <sb> That is done now (CWS sb71, integrated in
SRC680m234, still causing some trouble).
[2007-11-02 10:14:31] <kr> sb: that was a good job :-)
[2007-11-02 10:15:21] <sb> In parallel, Ingo worked on making the
scp/instset modules ready for future needs, next step there is to
actually re-organize what files go into which packages (e.g., moving all
arch-indep or language-dep files into their own packages).
[2007-11-02 10:15:49] <is1> First I made changes in scp and scp tooling.
New scp linker, allowing multiple service.rdb, cleanup scp. In
[2007-11-02 10:16:17] <sb> My next step is to split brand parts out of
OOo installations, similar to the URE/OOo split. That should be ready
for OOo 3.0, so that starting with OOo 3.0 we can actually ship such
"distributed" products.
[2007-11-02 10:16:29] <sb> That's about it.
[2007-11-02 10:16:40] <kendy_> sb: Could you please define 'brand parts'?
[2007-11-02 10:17:44] <sb> "Brand" is probably not an ideal term. In
short: everything that is different between different products that are
OOo or are derived from OOo (plain OOo, BrOffice, Sun's
StarOffice/StarSuite, Linux distro builds).
[2007-11-02 10:18:12] -->| _Nesshof_ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-2ac521cacea764fd)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:18:38] <sb> Where ideally these differences are minimal
(but will probably always be there, like everyone wants his own splash
screen).
[2007-11-02 10:18:49] <tml_> isn't especially BrOffice extremely
minimally different from a "normal" OOo?
[2007-11-02 10:19:02] <sb> tml_: Yes, I think so.
[2007-11-02 10:19:02] <kendy_> sb: So - you mean it like extensions that
are available just in some products?
[2007-11-02 10:19:20] <mhu> sb: you mentioned preparations to move
lang-dep files into own packages, but only mention brand-refactoring for
OOo 3.0. For when is lang-refactoring implementation planned?
[2007-11-02 10:19:23] <sb> kendy_: Yes, those need to be addressed, to.
[2007-11-02 10:19:29] <kendy_> sb: Or even that eg. SO using a different
spell checker than OOo? [theoretically ;-)]
[2007-11-02 10:19:51] <kr> Just for the minutes, OOo / StarOffice /
StarSuite currently don't share any packages. We would like change that
in a way, that the OOo packages may be the basis for StarOffice and
StarSuite, meaning the packages should not differ anymore.
[2007-11-02 10:19:56] <sb> mhu: is already did (most?) of the work for
that, I think.
[2007-11-02 10:20:34] <is1> Separation of language files is
automatically done in my current cws for OOo 3.0 (native110)
[2007-11-02 10:20:58] <mhu> is1: thanks fopr the update
[2007-11-02 10:21:07] <kr> isl: but you did change some code for it,
didn't you? :-)
[2007-11-02 10:21:42] <is1> I made changes in scp (language templates)
and changed the packaging process.
[2007-11-02 10:21:56] <sb> kendy_: Yes. My approach to splitting out
the brand layer would be to look where products actually differ, to see
if those differences are really necessary, and for those that are, see
there are mechanisms in the code that those differences can be factored
out of a shared common basis set of packages into (hopefully) minimal
sets of product-specific "brand" packages.
[2007-11-02 10:22:31] <mhu> sb: back to status for OOo 3.0: so not only
URE is done already, but also lang-dep refactoring; right?
[2007-11-02 10:22:43] <kendy_> sb: Do the lists I sent to 'OOo split
packages' actually help in this effort?
[2007-11-02 10:22:47] * kendy_ hopes so ;-)
[2007-11-02 10:23:10] <is1> We have not started to split the core
packages, but your lists will probably help.
[2007-11-02 10:23:23] <sb> kendy_: Yes, I think so (though I had no time
yet to really look at them). But I think we can cooperate there
wonderfully.
[2007-11-02 10:23:38] <kendy_> sb: Perfect, thank you!
[2007-11-02 10:23:47] <kr> Yes, see it the same way ...
[2007-11-02 10:24:19] <kr> And also would like to see the distribution
of SCP happening
[2007-11-02 10:24:41] <sb> mhu: Without actually knowing details about
native110 right now: Yes.
[2007-11-02 10:24:47] <kendy_> kr: Do you mean it that scp lists would
be part of the modules, right?
[2007-11-02 10:25:02] <kendy_> kr: Like vcl/scp2/<the-lists>?
[2007-11-02 10:25:04] <tml_> kr: you mean spreading out the information
in scp2 to where the actual files are built?
[2007-11-02 10:25:22] <kr> Yes, what you actually mentioned in your mail
on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2007-11-02 10:25:37] <kr> Or did I misunderstood?
[2007-11-02 10:26:38] <kendy_> kr: Not sure if I wrote it there, but
yes, this is very welcome as well!
[2007-11-02 10:26:54] <mhu> sb: thanks; reason for my question is, that
such fundamental packaging changes can only be done with a major release.
[2007-11-02 10:27:03] <kr> kendy_: I may got it from M. Meeks
[2007-11-02 10:28:13] <kendy_> kr: Yes, probably; either way, would be
great :-)
[2007-11-02 10:28:38] * obr wonders whether for such trivial things like
libraries and such some simpler format than .scp would suffice
[2007-11-02 10:28:54] <kr> Seems that we ag
[2007-11-02 10:29:20] <kr> obr: what do you think about?
[2007-11-02 10:29:37] <kendy_> obr: I'd go with scp first, and then
simplify the format if possible
[2007-11-02 10:30:07] <_Nesshof_> obr: combining d.lst and scp perhaps
[2007-11-02 10:30:08] <_Nesshof_> ?
[2007-11-02 10:30:15] <is1> You should not forget that scp supports all
platforms, not only Linux packages.
[2007-11-02 10:30:45] <sb> mhu: Yes, this is the topic that /if/ you
want to do changes to the package structure within a major release line,
that has implications on what you can offer to people to upgrade within
that major release line (like whether you can offer platform-specific
patch sets, or only true respin sets, etc.).
[2007-11-02 10:31:23] -->| Andre_
([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-aad5bc41df8d2695) has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:31:42] -->| _Nesshof__ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sun/x-f9cd0e25bb52052c)
has joined #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:31:54] <kendy_> mhu: Eg. with rpms or debs, you can
define a nice upgrade path with 'provides' and 'obsoletes' - so from my
point of view, major release is not a must.
[2007-11-02 10:32:13] <obr> is1: this is why I mentioned libaries only.
we still might need some scripting to create msi tables, but I agree
with kendy_
[2007-11-02 10:32:29] <obr> let's go with scp first.
[2007-11-02 10:32:41] <sb> Re scp: My philosophy would be to do it in
small steps. Do not replace those established processes wholesale (that
will likely break dramatically). For example, first distribute scp,
then change the format.
[2007-11-02 10:33:08] <is1> Redistribution of scp alone requires a new
packaging process.
[2007-11-02 10:33:24] <kr> kendy_: thanks for the hint, going to take a
look at 'obsoletes' later :-)
[2007-11-02 10:33:58] <kr> sb: we may event to distribute scp in steps ...
[2007-11-02 10:34:08] <kendy_> kr: Talk to pmladek about this, he's much
more experienced in that area than me ;-)
[2007-11-02 10:34:13] <sb> kendy_: but always remember that such
solutions need to work on all relevant platforms (Linux, Windows,
Solaris, probably Mac).
[2007-11-02 10:34:19] <kr> sb: we may want to distribute scp in steps ...
[2007-11-02 10:34:42] <obr> kr: we already use obsoletes & co in vanilla OOo
[2007-11-02 10:35:02] <kr> obr: :^)
[2007-11-02 10:35:18] <obr> for the core package split IIRC
[2007-11-02 10:36:36] <kr> May I ask, if we have patches on OOo e.g. for
security fixes? Or do we only have respins (full builds)?
[2007-11-02 10:37:01] <kr> This may have implications on when we can
change package structures ...
[2007-11-02 10:37:46] <is1> We offer no patches for OOo, only respins
[2007-11-02 10:38:23] <kr> OK
[2007-11-02 10:38:29] <tml_> kr: the WIndows patches (.msp files, i.e.
Windows Installer updates) Novell has done have been lastly made by
doing full rebuilds, and then running the "diff" tool (msimsp) on
so-called administrative installs
[2007-11-02 10:38:30] <sb> kr: For true security fixes, that would have
no implications, I think, as we would not want to change package
structures in security fixes, anyway. (The problem is more that we mix
security fixes with other things into releases.)
[2007-11-02 10:38:36] <Andre_> is1: but we offer patches for products
based on OOo :-)
[2007-11-02 10:38:54] <kendy_> When talking about structures, it would
be great to have a more standard structure for the OOo installation,
like lib/, bin/ etc. instead of everything in program/
[2007-11-02 10:39:13] <is1> andre: yes, of course.
[2007-11-02 10:39:50] <kr> tml_: for what kind of updates (major, minor,
micro) are you going to offer patches ?
[2007-11-02 10:39:51] <sb> kendy_: A nice to have that costs much work.
(Believe me, splitting parts of program/ to .../ure-tree/lib and
.../ure-tree/bin was more than a headache at times.)
[2007-11-02 10:40:22] <kendy_> sb: So does ure already have that?
[2007-11-02 10:40:23] <kr> kendy_: Yep, should be added to the list.
[2007-11-02 10:40:54] <sb> kendy_: Yes, ure does it somewhat platform
specific (lib and bin on Unix, just bin on Windows).
[2007-11-02 10:41:10] <kendy_> sb: Cool!
[2007-11-02 10:41:28] <tml_> kr: so far only within a version, withing
2.1.0 and 2.3.0. not from 2.1.0 to 2.3.0 (we skipped 2.2)
[2007-11-02 10:42:32] <tml_> kr: the patches have been for security
fixes and important bug fixes
[2007-11-02 10:42:34] <sb> tml_: Sounds like a reasonable approach to
me. Use patches for what they are designed to do: add (small) sets of
(important) fixes.
[2007-11-02 10:42:39] <kr> tml_: means micros only. AFAIK, this implies
that we must not change package structures in micros (2.3.0 -> 2.3.1),
doesn't it?
[2007-11-02 10:43:03] <tml_> kr: yes, I think so
[2007-11-02 10:43:10] <sb> kr: Of course, but that is in sync with the
philosophy (only important fixes go into micros, nothing else).
[2007-11-02 10:44:05] <kr> sb: yes, certainly. Still makes sense to
agree on the obvious :-)
[2007-11-02 10:45:46] <sb> Anything else? Otherwise, should we make
this a regular thing? Once a month? This time (i.e., first Friday,
9--10 UTC)?
[2007-11-02 10:45:55] <kr> sb: As we all mostly agree on the direction
to work towards, shouldn't we have place (wiki page or so) where we can
coordinate our work? Would that be already existing page?
[2007-11-02 10:46:01] <obr> one last question:
[2007-11-02 10:46:39] <obr> is it planned to keep both options around:
installing Office & URE side by side in a single package and
[2007-11-02 10:46:43] <Andre_> sb: please lets try to use 10-11 UTC
[2007-11-02 10:47:00] <obr> in two (or more) different packages ?
[2007-11-02 10:47:07] <sb> kr: Yes, I can put up a
meta-packaging-issues page in wiki. Will post a pointer so everybody can
add stuff.
[2007-11-02 10:47:30] <thorstenziehm> I hope we discussed about a time
frame that all these changes are integrated in OOo 3.0 until Beta (April
'08), I'm right?
[2007-11-02 10:47:41] <kendy_> sb: Wich mailing list? I'd propose [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
[2007-11-02 10:47:53] <kr> obr: ???
[2007-11-02 10:47:53] <sb> obr: No, not planned right now.
[2007-11-02 10:48:22] <sb> thorstenziehm: At least what I and is are
doing: yes, as I said, OOo 3.0.
[2007-11-02 10:48:31] <obr> sb: so you are killing the current install
process on Mac
[2007-11-02 10:48:37] |<-- _Nesshof_ has left freenode (Read error: 110
(Connection timed out))
[2007-11-02 10:48:39] <sb> kendy_: OK, [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there are no
objections.
[2007-11-02 10:49:02] |<-- Andre has left freenode (Read error: 110
(Connection timed out))
[2007-11-02 10:49:05] <obr> creating two .dmgs to install per drag and
drop is a no no I think
[2007-11-02 10:49:17] <sb> obr: it is on my radar that we have to
address that (in some way or other) :)
[2007-11-02 10:49:34] <obr> sb: ok
[2007-11-02 10:49:47] <mhu> sb: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is fine
[2007-11-02 10:50:14] <Andre_> .
[2007-11-02 10:50:15] <sb> 10-11 UTC would be OK for me, too. Anybody?
[2007-11-02 10:51:09] <kendy_> OK here
[2007-11-02 10:51:11] <kr> Fine for me.
[2007-11-02 10:51:16] <obr> +1
[2007-11-02 10:51:19] <is1> +1
[2007-11-02 10:51:34] <mhu> +1
[2007-11-02 10:51:43] <kr> =3
[2007-11-02 10:52:01] <mhu> %7 = ?
[2007-11-02 10:52:05] <_Nesshof__> sb: is once a month enough ?
[2007-11-02 10:52:06] <kendy_> [I guess we'll shift it with dayligth
saving time ;-)]
[2007-11-02 10:52:35] <kr> UTC does not shift.
[2007-11-02 10:52:51] <sb> _Nesshof__: Think so, with mailing lists and
wiki in place. If we feel a need for more, we can discuss that then.
[2007-11-02 10:53:00] <_Nesshof__> ok
[2007-11-02 10:53:21] <kendy_> kr: UTC does not, but the lunch time does ;-)
[2007-11-02 10:53:50] <mhu> kendy_: :-)
[2007-11-02 10:53:50] <kr> kendy_: OK, you are right :-)
[2007-11-02 10:54:01] <kendy_> Anyway, it's still too far :-)
[2007-11-02 10:54:43] <kr> I trust SB is able to figure out a suitable
time and frequency. Going to leave now ...
[2007-11-02 10:54:48] <sb> We are all in the same time zone, right? Make
it 11-12 in Hamburg/Prague/etc., then?
[2007-11-02 10:54:49] <kendy_> sb: Will there be a notes from this, please?
[2007-11-02 10:55:02] <sb> kendy_: Yes, will post them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2007-11-02 10:55:11] <kr> bye
[2007-11-02 10:55:11] <Andre_> bye
[2007-11-02 10:55:14] <kendy_> sb: Thank you!
[2007-11-02 10:55:15] |<-- kr has left freenode ("Leaving")
[2007-11-02 10:55:19] <lutzh> cu
[2007-11-02 10:55:22] |<-- Andre_ has left freenode ("ChatZilla 0.9.78.1
[Firefox 2.0.0.8/2007100816]")
[2007-11-02 10:55:23] <sb> hasta luego, folks
[2007-11-02 10:55:24] <--| lutzh has left #ooopackaging
[2007-11-02 10:55:29] <mhu> bye
[2007-11-02 10:55:36] <obr> bye
[2007-11-02 10:55:37] <is1> bye
[2007-11-02 10:55:40] <kendy_> Bye! And thank you!
[2007-11-02 10:55:47] [QUIT] Disconnected from irc://freenode/
(irc://irc.freenode.net/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
