On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 > Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > > > Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 > > > Kay Schenk<kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we > make a > > >> decision that we do not want to provide Linux-32 binaries, we need a > 32-bit > > >> Cent OS 5 buildbot. I'' create a new ticket today. > > > > > > Possibly because most OO developers have 64 bit computers, we tend to > > > overlook the need for 32 bit versions of OO. We should not lose sight > > > of the need for such versions - it as a way of introducing people > > > using older machines. Most of the older people I know (mostly 65+, > > > retired) are using 32 bit machines, often handed down from their > > > children. > > > > right, but do you really mean - or have heard/read - that they get Linux > > machines from their children? I think it will be still Windows - and > > here 32 or 64 bit doesn't matter. > > > > But anyway, yes we still need 32-bit binaries for Linux. > > > > Marcus > > > When I am asked I guide them to 32 bit linux to help older computers work > well. If we drop 32 bit for linux, we effectively abandon that area to > LibO; we have enough of an uphill fight regaining users from the inbuilt > installation of LibO on the distros as it is. We shouldn't abandon that > area. >
I dont follow the notion of "abandon that area", we have never had a 32bit centOS buildbot or for that matter a 64bit, so we are not abandoning anything, we are instead expanding. I dont know if we made releases available on centOS earlier, but for sure we did not do it with ASF buildbot. rgds jan i > > -- > Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
