Hello,
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald pfeifer.com>
Subject: lang/gcc-ooo removal?
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:20:03 +0100 (CET)
> as the maintainer of most of our lang/gcc ports I
wonder whether/when
> we can remove some of those old gcc ports such as
lang/gcc-ooo?
> At my day job, we are regularily building
OpenOffice.org, and have
> been doing so for some years, with our default GCC 3.3,
GCC 4.0 and
> now GCC 4.1 system compilers.
Your question is very understandable. I assume you are
talking about cons
of my approach.
Hamburg team uses gcc-3.4.1+enum fix+visibility patch for
their verification/qa
for source code integration.
http://
wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Compiler_versions_used_by_
port_maintainers_and_release_engineers
Integration is only verified with it. Release engineering
team in SUN Hamburg
rejects if patch and/or source code is not buildable with it
(not only with gcc341+...)
Other than Hamburg RE, we cannot integrate only a single
patch for cvs repo.
Please understand OOo is a very big project, I respect their
stand point.
Everything has pros and cons.
Again, criterion for buildability, Hamburg team uses that
gcc341+vis+enum.
If, for some cws, build fails with that gcc, simply we must
go back fix them.
But they welcome patches for gcc-3.3 regressions and gcc-4.x
syntax strictness.
What that means? For every milestones, we check them and fix
them!
That's why you think OOo is buildable with gcc-3.3, 4.0 and
4.1.
This is not automatic.
For example:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73475
(3.3)
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72667
(4.1)
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71339
(4.2)
(there are more, I have been building MacOSX packages with
Panther using gcc-3.3,
I found a lot of regressions, and fixes. others found
more...)
Then, I must keep buildable with FreeBSD with gcc 3.3,
4.1...it makes me mad.
Recently I use my opteron box because now everyone expect
buildable with amd64
even for -devel. This partially includes 4.1 patches
(usually extra qualification error).
I'm very lazy and delegate my work, so I just see the report
and include.
> On a related note, why do we need six(!) ports of
OpenOffice in the
> collection?
No, seven ;)
openoffice.org-1.0/ openoffice.org-1.1/
openoffice.org-2-devel/
openoffice.org-1.1-devel/ openoffice.org-2-RC/
openoffice.org-2/
ooo-build/
1. ooo-build is a minor fork from (former) ximian, include a
lot of patches, esp. VBA stuff
and more. Usually many GNU/Linux distro uses it but I don't
like to set it as default,
as we must support it as well.
2. openoffice.org-2 : I think no explanation is necessary.
3. openoffice.org-2-devel : usual openoffice.org developer
version. I must have keen eyes
to keep it buildable. And for history. I don't do QA for it,
apparently we cannot.
if we notice some parts are broken, we must identify two
milestones. There might be
FBSD build issues here...I experienced such kind of problem
with MacOSX.
http://qa.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=
dev&msgNo=7789
4. openoffice.org-2-RC. When -devel is branched as RC, I had
been committed to
openoffice.org-2 port. RC1, RC2..sometimes it reaches to
RC7.
It requires huge burden for users. Linimon suggested to
create this. I think
this is reasonable so I created this. Still there might be
some FreeBSD issues :(
5. openoffice.org-1.1 : I'd like to keep it because I think
it is lighter than 2.x
6. openoffice.org-1.1-devel : still Hamburg team creating
cws for it...I'm very sure
that it will become 1.1.6 though, but for future, I'd like
to move to openoffice.org-3-devel
to preserve commit log.
> openoffice.org-1.0 and even openoffice.org-1.1 are
history; I doubt
> that user interest for these is high (or even
existant).
Hmm, maybe ooo-1.0 is a history but still I believe, I need
it.
It take very small resources. Only Pentium MMX 266MHz with
64Mbytes of memory
and 6G of HDD is enough.
Hamburg team still maintains issues for 1.1, I think we
should maintain them too.
With, 1.1.5 we can read at least OpenDocumentFormat.
> I believe that by getting rid of the lang/gcc-ooo port
and
> openoffice.org-1.0 and openoffice.org-1.1 we will in
the end make
> life for our users *and* the FreeBSD build cluster
easier.
summary
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
* In the future, we can remove lang/gcc-ooo, when following
part will have been changed
to gcc4.1 (or something like that)
http://
wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Compiler_versions_used_by_
port_maintainers_and_release_engineers
Linux x86 all distributions with glibc-2.2.4 or newer
OOo/SO RE (Sun Hamburg) hropenoffice.org GCC 3.4.1
+ enum patch + visibility patch build: Sun JDK 1.4.1_03,
ship: Sun JRE-1.5
* If you think some problem with build cluster, I think I
can drop some of ports
for build cluster only.
* We can remove gcc-ooo dependency for openoffice.org-2
port. But not -devel port. Thus
we cannot remove. How do you think?
* I'd like to keep older ones. We have money to buy faster
machines.
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
thanks,
-- NAKATA, Maho (mahoFreeBSD.org)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-openofficefreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-op
enoffice
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-openoffice-unsubscribefreebsd.org"
|
> * We can remove gcc-ooo dependency for openoffice.org-2
port. But not
> -devel port. Thus we cannot remove. How do you
think?
My main motivation was getting rid of lang/gcc-ooo, and
removing the
dependency for openoffice.org-2 will be a welcome step in
that direction.
Hopefully Sun will change policies at one point or something
else happens
so that we can get rid of the final depdency later.
Thanks,
Gerald
_______________________________________________
freebsd-openoffice