cvs commit: ports/editors/openoffice-1.1 Makefile
pmes at bis.midco.net
Mon Mar 15 10:18:54 PST 2004
Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Nakata Maho wrote:
>>> 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.
> How about a private CVS repository, like gnome, kde or many other projects
> have? You leave FreeBSD useres without a working OpenOffice.org port, and
> I can't really see the benefits of your approach.
Hey! I'm just grateful the guy is doing this work, and you should be
too. You can install the binary package or even create the private
repository for him, but to criticize him for doing work on this
*incredibly complex* port is just simply WRONG.
Please restrain yourself! We're lucky he's committing the time and
energy to work on this. If you can't put a positive spin on your
comments, i.e. "I will help you with this" or, "let me know what I can
do," just sit quiet like the rest of us.
More information about the cvs-ports