On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 17:09 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> hmm, who exactly needs it ?
grep openssl */prj/build.lst
HTH,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
___
LibreOffice maili
> As a sidenote, the need for openssl is not direct for LO, but
> something
> needed for dependencies. I wanted to remove openssl altogether and
> rely on
> nss instead, and you could almost hear the grunts of pain on irc. My
> feeling is that this dep is too obscure, so nobody wants to touch
> it
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 05:32 -0400, Marc-André Laverdière wrote:
> As a sidenote, the need for openssl is not direct for LO, but
> something needed for dependencies. I wanted to remove openssl
> altogether and rely on nss instead, and you could almost hear the
> grunts of pain on irc. My feeling is
As a sidenote, the need for openssl is not direct for LO, but something
needed for dependencies. I wanted to remove openssl altogether and rely on
nss instead, and you could almost hear the grunts of pain on irc. My
feeling is that this dep is too obscure, so nobody wants to touch it...
On 2012-03-
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> I'll maintain my downstream fork dropping the 3rdparty packages step
> by step. (I'll contigiously rebase, to I'll be ontop of master).
>
Again. most packager for unix based distro can do just that with the
proper configure argument of Li
> :-) if you have fixes / improvements they are most welcome. Clearly
> waiting for an up-stream release (eg. gnumake - at over 12 months
> since the last release), is not always an option - at which point, you have
> to patch the pristine source tar-ball; checkout the patch count on most
>
> M$
Bt. Thanks for playing!
--tml
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
> Sounds good to me; as/when you have a nice, working package
> management
> system for Windows & Mac, that is invisible to the user, and handles
> one-click application downloads, creates no extra unwanted UI
> interfaces, and deals with version requirement skew across unrelated
> app
Hi Enrico,
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 19:04 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Most of the patches are ancient, against ancient versions, completely
> outdated. Many of them are only quick and dirty hacks for the bundled
> building
:-) if you have fixes / improvements they are most welcome. Clearl
> It'd be lovely to have that done & tested :-) of course, some
> careful
> work is needed to ensure that the existing patches are either forward
> ported, or checked to ensure that they are no longer needed.
ACK. The existance of those patches already shows the problem I was
talking
Hi Enrico,
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 18:28 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Instead of everyone bundling hundreds of (often outdated) libraries,
> the generic solution is quite simple: create a generic package
> management system for that platform and then let it handle all.
Sounds good to me;
> As soon as you get Microsoft to install system openssl library, you
> can probably do that, in the mean time
This is a general problem on such esoteric platforms which have no
package management. It's an distro issue, nothing in the scope of
individual applications.
Instead of everyone bundli
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've just seen that LO still bundles an ancient version of openssl.
>
> Directly bundling such libraries is a stupid idea anyways, so I'll
> start cleaning up that mess.
As soon as you get Microsoft to install system openssl li
13 matches
Mail list logo
