Hm, so we have a limit at 72 or 260 or 128 (UDF/CDROM, or 64 for
Joliet), but error reports are not reproducible?
Anyway, the path names inside the packages have not changed so the
installed office is not affected. Only the name of the package has changed.
-Andre
On 23.03.2012 13:26, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:08:25 -0400
TJ Frazier<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/23/2012 05:48, Andre Fischer wrote:
On 22.03.2012 21:46, TJ Frazier wrote:
On 3/22/2012 16:28, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Juergen Schmidt
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 22. March 2012 at 15:19, Oliver-Rainer
Wittmann wrote:
Hi,
On 22.03.2012 13:51, Herbert Duerr wrote:
Please note that the install sets that fall out of a
build have been renamed
from OOo* to Apache_OpenOffice_incubating* so that e.g.
OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
now has the file name
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
I would prefer a shorter AOO_incubating_3.4.0_...
I used for example a scheme like aoo-3.4-incubating-src...
for our source release. Similar to for example the
odftoolkit (incubating) project.
Why expanding OOo to Apache_OpenOffice_? Ok it seems we
have to include "incubating" but that's it.
It looks like the recommendation is to use the full product
name, but the "Apache" part is optional for podlings.
So "openoffice-3.4.0-incubating" would be one possible root.
See:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming
Has anybody checked to see if we'll run into that idiotic
72-character limitation on path names?
Can you explain where there this a 72-character limitation ?
-Andre
Hi, Andre,
The best I can find is an old issue, 109096
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=109096
but that is a 260-character limit, and supposedly fixed
(considering the dates, the fix may or may not have made it
into the code base).
Some similar problem was mentioned as a build breaker on this
list, last fall, but I don't recall enough detail to search for
it successfully. IIRC, some change to paths and directories hit
the bug.
I cannot substantiate the "72 character" part. Possible parity
error in the old jelly-ware.
/tj/
Just my 2 cents
Juergen
and another heads up ;-)
The next developer snapshots, proposed by Jürgen, will
_not_ contain this change.
Best regards, Oliver.
From memory this was an MSDOS and early Windows limitation which
occasionally jumps out (from old link libraries?) and bites one.
