Excessive dependancies for OpenOffice 2.0 port

[Volker Quetschke]

Mikhail T. wrote:
> = On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:18:09PM -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> = > I'm surprised, you are not objecting to the port's building of its OWN
> = > C and C++ compiler, as well as a bunch of "small" things like STLport,
> = > db4, expat (yes, it depends on it, but builds its own too!), sablotron,
> = > xmlsec, etc. etc.
> 
> = I don't think you realise how much work it is to keep OO building even
> = with stock vendor sources, let alone with third party versions of
> = those packages.
> 
> Actually, I do realise that, and, in my opinion, it is _harder_ to keep
> it building the current way. The third-party packages -- installed by
> other ports -- have their own maintainers, who watch out for build
> problems.
Then I suggest that you provide the patches and feed them back to
OOo so that the next time you don't have to do it again once a new
OOo version comes up. Don't forget to sign the copyright agreement.

> Building a special version of C compiler is, AFAIK, unprecedented.
Feel free to work around the bugs that prohibit the use of *old* gcc
versions or convince the maintainer of the regular (FreeBSD) gcc version
to incorporate the visibility patch:
  <http://www.nedprod.com/programs/gccvisibility.html>

> The major problem, that the OOo maintainers have created for themselves
> is the rebuild of such things as mozilla (old, outdated version) and
> STLport4 (old, outdated version). Even when using ccache, these useless
> things take A LOT of time and diskspace. Plus, of course, a whole slew
> of small items (beginning with dmake).
Even though you have your point that a lot of packages are included as old
versions there is also work going on to reduce these dependencies. Did
you ever look at the "--with-system-XXX" parameters of OOo's configure?

Also you complain about a tool (dmake) that takes roughly 10 seconds to
build *and* that is available in the ports collection so that it doesn't
have to be rebuild? Do you have the time to check/redo all the makefiles
for a 300MB source package that builds just fine with dmake?
(Insert nasty comment about BSD make vs. GNU make here.)

> Maho -- the soul of our openoffice@ team -- is more of an OOo person,
> than FreeBSD person. And that's the root of it -- OOo's philosophy with
> respect to 3rd-party packages is that it MUST be buildable with the
> bundled versions and, OPTIONALLY, with the already installed ones. A
> FreeBSD port should be different...
Maybe you should check your attitude. If you stop thinking of OOo as
a port but as an application that runs on many OSs (including FreeBSD)
and the failure to do so as a bug we might actually get somewhere.

Maho, keep up the good work!

> I'm trying to make an OOo port that would work on 64-bit arches (my main
> system is amd64). I'm long past the third-party packages problem -- it
> is all about 64-bit integers/pointers now...
I see that you are already familiar with the internals so that I don't
have to point you to Jan Holesovskys (and others) work on the 64bit
version. You might want to have a look at the cws_src680_ooo64bit02
branch and Jan's presentation at OOoCon2005.
<http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/ooo/OOoCon-2005/AMD64_OOo_OOoCon_2005.html>

His blog might also be interesting for you:
<http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/blog/>

So, keep up your work, I hope you get your /port/ of OOo running on
64bit soon.


  Volker

P.S.: 64bit questions are discussed frequently on dev at porting.openoffice.org

-- 
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20051106/602964bc/signature-0001.bin