On Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 06/01/2015 12:09 AM, jan i wrote: > > On 31 May 2015 at 18:43, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 05/30/2015 05:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >>> On 30/05/2015 Kay Schenk wrote: > >>>> On 05/30/2015 01:57 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >>>>> Assuming AOO builds on CentOS 6, is there any reason to insist > >>>>> on CentOS 5? > >>>> There was a dissension. I did ask about the ramifications -- what > >>>> specifically IS the issue to moving to CetnOS 6 -- but got no reply. > >>> > >>> I think it was already explained by Ariel and me at the time. But in > >>> short, OpenOffice 4.x has CentOS 5.x (or the equivalent Red Hat 5.x) as > >>> a baseline distribution: in a certain sense, we commit to keeping > >>> sources buildable on CentOS 5 and to distributing binaries that run on > >>> distributions as old as CentOS 5. In order to change our baseline > >>> distribution we would normally need a compelling technical reason or a > >>> major version change (say, OpenOffice 5.x). > >> > >> I understand this but from a technical standpoint, what are the show > >> stoppers with ver 6 vs 5? Or, put another way, what would be impacted in > >> AOO if this change were made today? > >> > >>> > >>> Then for the buildbots we already use more modern distributions, but a > >>> CentOS buildbot would best be setup with CentOS 5 for the reasons > >>> explained above: a CentOS 5 buildbot would even allow us to build > >>> releases directly on it. > >> > >> Sure, in fact, this is what Juergen suggested in his resignation as > >> Release Manager, and for some reason, I thought (maybe?) we had agreed > on: > >> > >> http://markmail.org/message/qh6uzkfjcya647sb > >> > >> > >> I'm not saying this is a prerequisite for > >>> releasing 4.1.2, I'm simply explaining why the current situation makes > >>> it much more useful to have a CentOS 5 buildbot than a CentOS 6 one. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Andrea. > >>> > >> > >> OK, thanks. In summary, we seem to agree that establishing buildbots for > >> our actual binary release candidates is more than just important, but > >> necessary. I do admit that maybe this wasn't clear to everyone. > >> > > +1, and I am convinced that as soon as we get what we already have > > operational, > > infra will not be a release-blocker if we need additional buildbots. > > > > Looking at other threads, it seems our Mac buildbots are in the process > of > > being > > configured, does anybody have a planned ETA ? > > > > Who can/will look at the windows buildbot, it seems svn is not working ? > > > > We also need to reconfigure all buildbots to run with release config. > > I don't understand the above sentence. > > > > > I am quite busy with a couple of other things, so I do not have spare > > cycles at the > > moment. > > OK, I will at least followup on the infra ticket to see why the 64-bit > CentOS 6 machine seems to now be offline. I do hope in the next few > weeks, I will be able to help with a 32-bit CentOS box.
You should be aware that the centos 64bit vm never got a full installation it was an experiment to see if we (infra) could get puppet to work. rgds jan i > > > > > > rgds > > jan i. > > > >> > >> > > -- > -------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "We can all sleep easy at night knowing that > somewhere at any given time, > the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo." > -- David Letterman > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
