Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2012 um 17:43 schrieb Kay Schenk: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On 8/1/12 2:44 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to bring up a new issue for our upcoming release. Thanks to > > > > Ariel who brought this to my attention. > > > > > > > > It is related to our external tarballs where we never got a 100% clear > > > > answer. > > > > > > > > - we host them in ooo/ext_sources > > > > - Pedro has already move cat-b stuff to ooo-extras on apache-extras > > > > - these tar balls are not part of our src release, they are checked in > > > > there for convenience and when we started the project we had to find a > > > > place for them to move forward > > > > - the tar balls get downloaded on demand during the bootstrap process in > > > > our build process > > > > - but as fallback only if the original source is not available. > > > > - the svn Url is referenced in the external_deps.lst file which is part > > > > of the src release > > > > > > > > Our SVN Url will change if we potentially graduate. This change will > > > > break our src release. > > > > > > > > To avoid potential -1 votes from IPMC members or mentors for the 3.4.1 > > > > release and potential problems with our planned graduation I suggest > > > > that we fix this problem for 3.4.1. I hate to say that but it means that > > > > we have to rebuilt again. But it will avoid potential problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So two issues: > > > > > > 1) Pedro's concerns on Category-b tarballs stored in svn > > > > > > 2) Infra concerns about a build system that "phones home" and > > > downloads additional files from subversion > > > > > > To resolve both issues we need to remove build dependencies on *all* > > > download dependencies on svn tarballs, not just category-b ones. If > > > there are only category-a ones we should move them to Apache extras as > > > well, right? > > > > > > > > > that is how I understand it now as well. We still have to improve to > > understand the not written down policies or to ask so long questions > > until we get clear answers. > > > > > > > > Or is this not an issue? > > > > I think that is an issue and that the reason why I proposed a further > > rebuild. I would like to avoid further fruitless discussion and to bring > > us closer to a release with no surprising negative votes. > > > > Juergen > Hi Juergen -- > > Thanks for brining this up. well it was not me, Ariel pointed me on this when we coordinated the builds via private email. I would ha e overseen the changing Urls during graduation. > This is something we've needed to do for a > while. > >
Mmh, it depends how you see it. It is no technical issue. People argue with policies that are not really written down. > Better now than later. > > I agree but I am not happy with the timing. Juergen > So, yes, this is as good a time as any. A > little more delay in 3.4.1 is not a big deal at this point. Best of luck > with script building changes. > > +1 for this suggestion. > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > > > The related issue is > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120425 > > > > > > > > This change will only affect the src release builds but we have to pack > > > > the office again to include the new version number. > > > > > > > > I will keep you informed > > > > > > > > Juergen > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "I'm just a normal jerk who happens to make music. > As long as my brain and fingers work, I'm cool." > -- Eddie Van Halen > >
