On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk: > >> 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. >> > > I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 discussion is > also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds?
Somewhat, if we continue using CentOS for the Linux builds. Right now, gstreamer 1.0 as opposed to 0.10 is only supplied in CentOS 7. CentOS 7.x is supplied via the RH 7.x pipeline which is 64-bit only. There IS a CentOS 7.x - 32 bit provided by the CentOS community. I don't know if this stream will continue. > If so, a solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net > stats I get the following (2018-01-01 until today). > > BTW: > Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the OS > where OpenOffice should be installed on. > Yes. It would be better if you could get counts per AOO package name across all languages. > > OS % > ----------------------- > Windows 86,1165 > Macintosh 7,8424 > Unknown 4,9012 > Linux 1,0621 > Android 0,0762 > BSD 0,0011 > Solaris 0,0006 > > But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will be > for 64-bit. > > Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them? > > > 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."
