Re: two OOo orig.tar.gzs?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> Hm, duplicate sources seem like quite a hack to me,
really? for other sources they were requested by the release
team. or do you mean "it depends ..."
> and a potentially fragile at that.
care to explain, in which way?
> The bottom line seems to be that OO.o has insane disk and build-time
> requirements. Assuming those themselves cannot be resolved
> significantly, and realizing that the very-long build-time is mostly due
> to the help stuff that's arch:all, and thus not involving buildds, I
so you propose and advise on hacks like "if user == buildd" in
the build scripts.
> think the sources should not be split, and simply good care should be
> taken to ensure there will be no gratuitous OO.o uploads, to reduce
> burden on mirrors.
>
> I'd really like to urge the OO.o team to look into reducing these
> requirements fundamentally though.
You know what you are asking for? The strings in the help are managed
in the same way as every other message. So you either ask to change
the upstream l10n framework, or to reduce the sources needed to build
the help. Urging for the former seems interesting, doing the latter is
the thing I call "potentially fragile" (dropping a 35MB tarball seems
doable though).
Your arguments make sense from the perspective as ftpmaster, but don't
help the debian developers. So maybe just keep the
ooo-helpcontent source package, as it's currently done?
Matthias
Reply to: