I am personally quite fond of this kernel.org-style idea. It is consistent with focused attention on ensuring a rock-solid reference implementation for ODF-native office-productivity software (and reusable components) while allowing its confident use in building user-facing distributions to a wide variety of target communities. Those distribution producers will also help us assure that the code is successfully portable.
- Dennis PS: It might be good not to call that OpenOffice.org, and we should have it even if for some reason we perpetuate full-up OpenOffice.org distros too. -----Original Message----- From: Danese Cooper [mailto:dan...@gmail.com] <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c97341eb4-c544-46cb-b760-96c5fb11b...@gmail.com%3e> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:00 To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A little OOo history 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... [ ... ] >> 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. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
