On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: > >> If we want something to be downloaded and used by the public then we > >> should release it, period. We should not be looking for clever ways > >> to avoid the important release steps of verifying IP, producing a > >> source package and voting on it. > > > > It seems you are mixing things, as I only proposed to build all language > > packages, while following the same release criteria as before (release > > only languages with 100% UI and a localization team backing it). Where > > do you see a clever way to avoid official procedures in this? > > > > When you suggested that we point users to these un-released binaries.
Well, this meant only: If a user sends a mail telling that AOO does not work on his RHEL 5 system, I find it good to point her/him to the packages I've made, this will solve her/his problem. So if I read the mail, I will point her/him to my packages. The same would apply in this case with the language packs (which I already plan to do for the linux-glib-2.5 build). I didn't mean to "officially" point the users (whatever that could mean). > > In the end, it's just the same as I've done with the linux glib-2.5 > > build, which is advertised in the portings page, and stored at > > people.apache.org... I haven't heard any complaints about this, so far > > only some people thankful > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385#c13 > > > > Perhaps we should start looking at such pseudo releases more carefully? I don't see the point, these are not (pseudo) releases, they are simply community contributed packages, that might be useful for some users. The same aipplies to adfinis solaris builds, and any other "unofficially" community contributed stuff. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
pgpxbOIyK0wfE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
