On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > >> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided >> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they >> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a >> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they >> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can >> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed >> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we >> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I >> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me. >> >> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic >> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone >> has stopped caring at this point in time. >> >> >> Let us conclude for now: >> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of >> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some >> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for >> this. >> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up. >> > > incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code. > > PS: > CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years. > > 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. >> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without >> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS >> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port >> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6. >> > > In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer. > To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*. > > And it is only relevant on Linux, right? > > IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we > also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger > impact for our users. >
You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this will have overall though. > > My 2 ct. > > Marcus > > > > > On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote: >> >>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines? >>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As >>> long as we use Java 8. >>> >>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8. >>> Nothing else. >>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other >>> members! >>> >>> >>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> >>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus >>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, >>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it. >>>> >>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be >>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support >>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's >>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we >>>> seem to not really care about that anymore. >>>> >>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everbody. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we >>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some >>>>>>> stuff to >>>>>>> get out to the people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. >>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172 >>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x? >>>>>> >>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use >>>>> it... ;-) >>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO >>>>> 4.1.x. >>>>> >>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Matthias >>>>> >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Less is MORE."
