On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 16:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > It just needs to be cleared by legal/board. > > While hosting non-OSS plugins is probably out, > > I don't see why we can't host OSS ones here > > especially if we don't change the dns from > > openoffice.org to apache.org. > > > > We already host modules.apache.org which provides > > a similar service for httpd modules. One essential > > implementation difference is that the downloads aren't > > served by us, we just point users at the offsite > > sources and only host metadata. Technically that's > > probably what I'd like to see happen to the ooo > > extensions site as well before bringing it in house. > > > > We had talked on another thread about a longer-term approach where we > would host a registry of externally-hosted extensions. That kind of > solutions has a lot of attractive qualities. > > Do you know anything about the http modules registry, e.g., where the > code is? That might be something we could use to jump-start an > extensions registry. It has the basics.
Alright - If I may just ask a couple of question. There is a current site, not on ASF or Oracle hardware, that site needs work, now then: Is there some reason why the current OSUOSL site can not be used going forward? I just have not heard that states as such. //drew
