| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sewsan
Blue Pill
Joined: Dec 02, 2004
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:39 am Post subject: what about OOo-1.1.3-4 and NeoOffice ? |
|
Sorry if the question has been asked before but I wonder if there is plan to include the corrections from OOo1.1.3-4 into NeoOffice... If I understand, NeoOffice is based on OOo1.1.2.
Sewsan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ovvldc
Captain Naiobi
Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2352
Location: Zürich, CH
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:28 am Post subject: Re: what about OOo-1.1.3-4 and NeoOffice ? |
|
| sewsan wrote: | | Sorry if the question has been asked before but I wonder if there is plan to include the corrections from OOo1.1.3-4 into NeoOffice... If I understand, NeoOffice is based on OOo1.1.2. |
You understand correctly. It all depends on Patrick, but he has indicated that there are often differences between the releases that would break NeoOffice/J. Right now the focus is on fixing and aquafying the current NeoOffice code, rather than updating the underlying codebase.
Also, 2.0 is coming and I read that Thorsten, Pavel, Eric and Eric have actually succeeded in getting a 680 milestone to build (through not actually do anything on startup). They don't yet have the latest one running, but they are making headway. So we might yet see a fairly rapid move to the new codebase, which will also take a lot of developer time.
But you may be able to persuade Patrick to include specific fixes for seriously annoying bugs that don't break anything else..
I'll leave this to Ed and Patrick to eleborate upon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakeOSX
Ninja
Joined: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 1373
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
(i am not ed or patrick)
patrick bases his neo/j off of the x11 mac ports (give or take) and since that is still on 1.1.2, more work is needed prior to updating to 1.1.3-4.
hadn't heard about the 2.0 build, that is good news. i was half tempted to download a snapshot and play with it on a windows machine...
only half tempted, mind you =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
FWIW I haven't compiled OOo 1.1.3 X11 successfully yet myself on 10.2.8. Having the X11 version compiling is a prerequisite for building Neo/J. It's an extension of OOo, so if OOo is horked, so is Neo/J.
I've not had the time to do X11 work in a while as I've been trying to focus on Neo/J and the servers.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Teague
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:22 am Post subject: Re: Ooo 1.1.3 |
|
| OPENSTEP wrote: | | FWIW I haven't compiled OOo 1.1.3 X11 successfully yet myself on 10.2.8. |
A couple of patches are required to build OOo 1.1.3 on Jaguar (I have successfully built it). I have done about 75% of updating/rewriting the build instructions, but am having difficulty finding time to complete the task.
I haven't tried building OOo 1.1.4 yet.
Regards, Terry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
I should have some time over the next few weeks to help you out with updating build instructions and the like. I'm pretty much socked in myself until next Wed. as I'm trying to find more about this AppleEvent NeoJ crash.
If you know what patches are required, I can put together a 10.2.8 build and a new installer for X11 to fix the mv -f issues  I haven't even thought about 1.1.4 yet. It's just so difficult for a handful of people to try to keep up with their pace without having a full-time "maintenance" staff.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mox
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ovvldc
Captain Naiobi
Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2352
Location: Zürich, CH
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
| jakeOSX wrote: | hadn't heard about the 2.0 build, that is good news. i was half tempted to download a snapshot and play with it on a windows machine...
only half tempted, mind you =) |
Well, playing for a little while won't hurt you.
Actually, the building effort for 2.0 on OSX has picked up significantly. For one, Kevin Hendricks has pitched in with his valuable expertise. After that, two Japanese people also joined. So now there are six or seven people building, examining and exchanging patches with the latest milestone.
Furthermore, some action has apparently been taken about the obtuse process of getting patches integrated into the main CVS. But I don't have details on that (or any experience with such tools). Maybe Pavel or Kevin can say if this has been a serious improvement. Considering the amount of of criticism I have seen about the old situation, I hope it is.
I am pretty optimistic they'll get m64 to build soon. But that won't mean it runs just yet, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sardisson
Town Crier
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
Posts: 4588
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:18 am Post subject: Re: German OOo 1.1.4/Mac X11 |
|
| mox wrote: | | For what it's worth, the germans seem to be happily making OSX -versions of the OpenOffice (the X11)... |
FYI, these "localized" builds only build and run on Mac OS X 10.3.x, so they're of "no" use to NeoOffice/J, which must run on Mac OS X 10.2.x also, and therefore is built on 10.2.x. So while the presence of the localized 1.1.4 build means OOo 1.1.4 (which is not yet a final release, anyway) does build on a specific subset of Macs, it means there's probably still work to be done before it could potentially be used as a basis for Neo/J. Two steps, in fact: getting 1.1.4 to build and run properly on Mac OS X 10.2.x and then fixing anything in 1.1.4 that breaks the NeoOffice/J-specific code.
As others have said, those two additional steps require a lot of work that could otherwise be spent on Aquafication tasks (improving NeoOffice/J), so unless the changes in 1.1.3/4 fix critical bugs, time could be better spent on more important tasks. (NeoOffice/J 1.1 Alpha 2 does already include a fix from 1.1.3 for at least one critical Mac-specific bug, so certain critical fixes can be picked up without upgrading entirely to the new OOo releases).
(OK, I'm not sure this post makes any sense at all. I'm feeling quite tired and am not sure I said anything that makes any sense. Apologies if this is only rambling gibberish.)
Smokey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mox
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:43 am Post subject: Re: The localized builds |
|
| Thanks for clarification At least I understood it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pluby
The Architect
Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 11949
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
So after all this discussion, I wrote a script that ran "cvs diff" between the OOo 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 code to see what really changed. Most of the changes were Mac OS X patches that were dropped or added and minor OOo bug fixes.
These changes are easy for me to pull into the Neo/J build so I am running a Neo/J build with the OOo 1.1.3 code on my Jaguar machine. So far, it is about 75% complete and still building without a problem.
If OOo 1.1.3 builds OK, I will use OOo 1.1.3 for the Neo/J Beta release.
Patrick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sardisson
Town Crier
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
Posts: 4588
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
| pluby wrote: | | Most of the changes were Mac OS X patches that were dropped or added and minor OOo bug fixes. |
Dropped? They're dropping Mac patches?! Good grief.
Smokey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pluby
The Architect
Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 11949
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
This is normal for OOo. What Sun doesn't build, they don't maintain or track. This is why Neo/J is in a separate CVS repository. 
Patrick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
It's actually nothing new. They've been dropping Mac patches ever since I've been working on OOo.
The basic problem is that the Mac stuff has historically been on its own branch or on a specific 1.1.x "fix" branch. In order for the patches to be moved forward, someone has to explicitly merge them into all of the active branches. This never happens. Patches always get lost in the merges. Patches that are incorporated successfully don't get branched properly. It doesn't just affect Mac patches, it affects other patches and projects as well, even Solaris.
This is one of those prices you pay for having a HEAD tag that doesn't compile and for using way too many CVS tags and branches. They must be up to at least 100 tags + by this point.
And people wonder why I never enjoy doing maintenance on the X11 builds
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
