On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 14:38:34 -0700: >>> I'm assuming by Pedro's remark that if 3.3.0 is ported to Apache >>> archives, security patches will have been applied -- i.e. THAT version >>> rebuilt with security, right? >> >> "Rebuilt" kind of defeats the purpose of archives.. > > I'd expect it to just be the current archive as well. > > Adding the need to have every 3.3 patched is an unnecessary prerequisite to > mirroring 3.3 in the archives. > > Instead writing scripts and instructions enabling users to apply the current > security patch on Linux is a separate task for another thread. >
And it would be appropriate to have a warning on the page that links to the earlier versions, along the lines of, "We recommend that you run the most recent version of Apache OpenOffice in order to have the most recent fixes, including important security fixes. An archive of older versions of OpenOffice.org are made available for those who require them for specialized purposes, but we recommend that all general users should run the most recent version". Something like that. But eventually we might decide, as a project, that we want to maintain more than one version of AOO. We don't really have that flexibility with OOo 3.3. But we could, for example,declare that AOO 3.4 is a LTS version that will be supported via patches or revisions, for some period of time (12 months?),in parallel with AOO 4.0. If we want to do that, then we would essentially have two "current" versions of AOO. I don't think the LTS version would go to the archive mirror. So we'd probably end up requiring twice the disk space, but approximately the same bandwidth to cover that. -Rob > Regards, > Dave > >> >> (the same version number shouldn't correspond to more than one set of >> source code) >
