Hi Phil, IMHO we would have to roll vanilla builds just to make sure it still builds when we declare a version. It used to take some iterations and tweaks per version to get a valid build (imagine that's still true). ASF should at least validate "buildability" as part of servicing the codebase, but I would assume effectively zero consumer end-users would get their software from us...
D On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Danese Cooper <dan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 4) most customers use OOo on Windows >> >> Last time I checked, the percentage of Windows users was still in the high >> 90s percentile. But it builds on the various Linux distros, as well as >> MacOSX and a bunch of other platforms, each with their own lovely and unique >> quirks. This complexity is one of the reasons it might be a good idea to >> behave like kernel.org and let OOo "distros" handle end-user packaging and >> distribution. Another reason would be that consumers are relatively >> unsophisticated and ask a lot of silly questions... >> >> > Thanks, Danese, that does clarify things a bit for those of us who haven't > been involved since the beginning. > > One question about the comment above though: Are you advocating that Apache > OOo stick to source-only releases, and avoid > building and delivering binaries altogether? Or is your idea that Apache > OOo would deliver builds, but that they be "Vanilla OOo" , ala the "vanilla > kernel" from kernel.org, with a presumption that (some|most|all) end-users > will choose to use a distribution provided by somebody else... where > somebody else could be IBM, Novell, LibreOffice, Red Hat, etc.? > > > Thanks, > > > Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
