From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 11:06:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C29516A4CE; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from postman.arcor.de (postman4.arcor-online.net [151.189.0.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29C543D2D; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:06:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-51-138.reverse.qsc.de [212.202.51.138]) (authenticated bits=0)i2FJ5tD2019107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:05:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from [172.16.0.2] (helo=fillmore-labs.com) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B2xPN-000H2V-4R; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:05:53 +0100 Message-ID: <4055FE90.1020000@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:05:52 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH - http://www.fillmore-labs.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Schultz 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> In-Reply-To: <4055BB1E.4010405@bis.midco.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Nakata Maho cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/openoffice-1.1 Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:06:02 -0000 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 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