On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Marcus (OOo) <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 07/31/2012 11:04 PM, schrieb drew: > >> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 14:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> I'm drafting the 3.4.1 release announcement blog post. I have a >>> bullet list where I highlight what is in 3.4.1. I list what platforms >>> are supported, mention the Windows 8 compatibility improvements, and >>> then follow with this bullet item: >>> >>> "Community members are also working on BSD, Solaris and OS/2 ports, >>> with plans to release these outside of Apache." >>> >> >> Howdy Rob, >> >>> Is this accurate and worth saying? >> >> >> Yes IIRC and yes IMO. > > > Also from me a yes. I think it's an advantage to point to other platforms > that we (somehow) support as this shows clearly a big diversity and open > mind. > > >>> Would it make sense to also >>> include links for each of these ports, where the reader can go for >>> more information? >> >> >> I would think a better return if instead of putting direct links for >> each, create a fixed address (wiki page?) for 'other ports' (or more >> appropriate for a title). > > > Or a separate webpage, but anyhow. A single page that contains all ports > with a bit text and finaly a link to go to the respective download > possibilities. >
I see that we have this legacy page: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Would that work? (It looks like it would need some updating) -Rob > >> Link to that from the announcement/blog and would make that a precedent >> for future announcements. >> >>> >>> Although these are not Apache releases, they are part of the close >>> ecosystem, with developers working directly in our project to support >>> these ports. So I think there is some logic to mentioning them in the >>> release announcement. But work that happens entirely outside of the >>> project, like portable applications versions, would not get a mention. >> >> >> I would disagree, somewhat, in that personal preference would be to >> include the 2 or 3 portable 'wrapper' distributors as this has seemed to >> be of interest to quite a few folks in the past. > > > Right. Just add them to the single page with text and link. That's it. :-) > > >> Just my .02 >> >> //drew >>> >>> >>> Does this seem fair and appropriate? >>> >>> If we agree to do this, I'll need a link for each of BSD, Solaris and >>> OS/2, for more information. >>> >>> The alternative would be to not mention the ports at all. > > > I don't see this as an alternative. Even when we don't support the ports and > portables directly resp. in a big way, it's absolutely worth to mention > this. The most common thing is the shared code base - and that's not small. > > Marcus >
