[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of work on OpenOffice



* Jan-Hendrik Palic <jan.palic@linux-debian.de> [011028 12:33]:
> Peter has made a picture [2] with the builddependency- tree, that shows us,
> splitting the source is impossible.
> [2] http://www.altlinux.ru/~nidd/oo/oo-components-depends.psz

Wow, I had expected an much more complex tree. If you remove everything
that should be replaced by in the final packages with the libraries
supplied with debian, than there is not that much remaining.

I had expected quite an mess, but it seems to have clear hirachies. I
think most bejond the "odk" (Meta-)Package can be put in 2-5 Packages
(perhaps also in 1, but I think if people adopt the odk for other
 projects, they will be glad to get it in reasonable sub-packages),

The parts around the "chaos" might be worth to investigate, perhaps
there will be some work upstream about this. 

I still think splitting the source in packages is the way to go for
OOo in the long run. Upstream is modular, and reflecting this in
the packaging will help the builders and perhaps allowing other 
odk-software to be packages easily. (If it will exist some day). 

Of course there is much to do, much in packaging and much upstream.
I'm not in the mood to correct their design-flaws and details directly
derived from hell. (Like using /proc to get the command-like options
and things like this) and I doupt I will in the near future. 
There are many good people upstream, some just started to reduce 
the compiler-warnings by no longer putting Instances of Objects in
an fprintf as %s and things like that, I a think other issues will
evolv also with the time. And getting it packaged thoroughly will
need quite some time, in that upstream will hopefully and with
some hints here and there get some of the ugliness solved.

In the meantime I think it is an good idea if we have one or some packages,
that are not that much changed from upstream, as it fullfills an need
for them, that is somewhat urgent. 
As these packages will most likely not work together with the
autobuilders (they do not have /proc mounted in the chroot, do they?)
and most likely with every Architecture except one or two, it might be
the best way to do those without an "any" or the like architecture-tag,
and make the autobuilders and other people clear, that it is not an
good idea to compile this package(s), as it still has some elements
of an game of chance. (Though these elements got significant less
within the last months and toi toi toi will keep doing so).

Hochachtungsvoll,
	Bernhard R. Link

-- 
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve 
nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin)

Attachment: pgpIft5HpTlkz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: