Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:02:59 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Nakata Maho <chat95@mbox.kyoto-inet.or.jp> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/openoffice-1.1 Makefile Message-ID: <40557F53.1060000@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040315.185903.596518725.chat95@mac.com> References: <200403130236.i2D2atOx068933@repoman.freebsd.org> <4052773D.5010507@fillmore-labs.com> <20040315.185903.596518725.chat95@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nakata Maho wrote:
[...]
>=20
>>Wouldn't it be better to come up with a patch and port it for review,
>>than using the FreeBSD CVS for development?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> My standpoint is reduce OOo patches to build as far as possible(remembe=
r,
> there were over 120 patches to build), however,=20
> still we have many (minor or major) problems, so we have ~10 patches.=20
> 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 project=
s
have? You leave FreeBSD useres without a working OpenOffice.org port, and=
I can't really see the benefits of your approach.
Just my 0.02 =80
Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40557F53.1060000>