Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:05:52 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/openoffice-1.1 Makefile Message-ID: <4055FE90.1020000@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4055BB1E.4010405@bis.midco.net> References: <200403130236.i2D2atOx068933@repoman.freebsd.org> <4052773D.5010507@fillmore-labs.com> <20040315.185903.596518725.chat95@mac.com> <40557F53.1060000@fillmore-labs.com> <4055BB1E.4010405@bis.midco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Schultz wrote: > Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >> Nakata Maho wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to come up with a patch and port it for review, >>>> than using the FreeBSD CVS for development? >>> >>> No. currently I cannot do it. Since OOo is huge port, comparable to >>> entire FreeBSD sourcecode. Maintaining this port is extremely difficult >>> if there's no such kind of thing (e.g., patch without IssueZilla >>> ticket), >>> we are soon confused what are committed or what aren't. >>> >>> My standpoint is reduce OOo patches to build as far as >>> possible(remember, >>> there were over 120 patches to build), however, still we have many >>> (minor or major) problems, so we have ~10 patches. IMHO, development >>> speed of OOo is extremely fast. to catch up with it, such kind >>> of things are quite necessary. >> >> How about a private CVS repository, like gnome, kde or many other >> projects >> have? You leave FreeBSD useres without a working OpenOffice.org port, and >> I can't really see the benefits of your approach. > > Hey! I'm just grateful the guy is doing this work, and you should be > too. You can install the binary package or even create the private > repository for him, but to criticize him for doing work on this > *incredibly complex* port is just simply WRONG. Creating a private repository should be easy. If <http://projects.imp.ch/openoffice/>; won't provide one and sourceforge is inadequate I'll be happy to help out. But you don't get my point: I don't criticize for doing work on this port, I just question if this is the best way to do it. 24 ports have been marked 'IGNORE', and this affects a lot of users. Furthermore we won't notice if any changes in the ports tree will break the OpenOffice ports. I guess you can imagine that both points are of importance for the FreeBSD OpenOffice community, and this breakage is easy to avoid. > Please restrain yourself! We're lucky he's committing the time and > energy to work on this. If you can't put a positive spin on your > comments, i.e. "I will help you with this" or, "let me know what I can > do," just sit quiet like the rest of us. No reason to get upset. I guess the suggestion to move development to an private repository is `a positive spin', and should normally ease development a lot, since you don't collide with other commits, have more freedom for development and have a broader audience for testing. The cited projects (gnome, kde) are not small either and pretty successful with this approach. I tend to see the ports tree as a whole, and hopeful this is beneficial for the `rest of us' too. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4055FE90.1020000>