incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: A little OOo history
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:52:19 GMT
On 6/7/2011 10:23 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> One question about the comment above though:  Are you advocating that Apache
> OOo stick to source-only releases, and avoid
> building and delivering binaries altogether?  Or is your idea that Apache
> OOo would deliver builds, but that they be "Vanilla OOo" , ala the "vanilla
> kernel" from, with a presumption that (some|most|all) end-users
> will choose to use a distribution provided by somebody else... where
> somebody else could be IBM, Novell, LibreOffice, Red Hat, etc.?

Just to clarify, only source code is "released" by the ASF.  Yes, there may
be binary artifacts built on that code (esp in the case of .jars), and some
of the reviewers may choose to verify available binaries, and some may also
verify their own binary builds, before voting on the release.

Some|most|all end-users (by which I mean administrators and even developers
using tools such as eclipse) obtain most Apache software as you describe
above, from another party.  In fact, RedHat might pick up the entire
LibreOffice stack which in turn is derived from much shared OOo code, while
a BSD distribution might pick up only the AL OOo base, and an entirely
unrelated office productivity suite might pick only document manipulation
classes from an AL OOo code base.

As an observer to the CoApp project at OuterCurve, I'm particularly
excited by what that project could accomplish with a Windows package,
starting from the AL base, including the LibreOffice work in GPL/CC that
the ASF would be unwilling to host.  As an .msi based distribution which
shakes out at the library/component level, upgrades from release to release
might consume far less bandwidth.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message