Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:59:03 +0900 (JST) From: Nakata Maho <chat95@mbox.kyoto-inet.or.jp> To: eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/openoffice-1.1 Makefile Message-ID: <20040315.185903.596518725.chat95@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <4052773D.5010507@fillmore-labs.com> References: <200403130236.i2D2atOx068933@repoman.freebsd.org> <4052773D.5010507@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In Message-ID: <4052773D.5010507@fillmore-labs.com> Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote: > I guess you just borked the comments of the lang/openoffice-1.1 ports. lang/ means for example japanese/openoffice-1.1 ? okay, I'll backout soon. > 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. thanks for your understanding. --nakata maho
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040315.185903.596518725.chat95>