lang/gcc-ooo removal?

[NAKATA Maho]

Hello,

From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer.com>
Subject: lang/gcc-ooo removal?
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:20:03 +0100 (CET)

> as the maintainer of most of our lang/gcc ports I wonder whether/when
> we can remove some of those old gcc ports such as lang/gcc-ooo?
> At my day job, we are regularily building OpenOffice.org, and have
> been doing so for some years, with our default GCC 3.3, GCC 4.0 and
> now GCC 4.1 system compilers.

Your question is very understandable. I assume you are talking about cons
of my approach.

Hamburg team uses gcc-3.4.1+enum fix+visibility patch for their verification/qa
for source code integration.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Compiler_versions_used_by_port_maintainers_and_release_engineers
Integration is only verified with it. Release engineering team in SUN Hamburg
rejects if patch and/or source code is not buildable with it (not only with gcc341+...)
Other than Hamburg RE, we cannot integrate only a single patch for cvs repo.
Please understand OOo is a very big project, I respect their stand point.
Everything has pros and cons.

Again, criterion for buildability, Hamburg team uses that gcc341+vis+enum.
If, for some cws, build fails with that gcc, simply we must go back fix them.
But they welcome patches for gcc-3.3 regressions and gcc-4.x syntax strictness.
What that means? For every milestones, we check them and fix them!
That's why you think OOo is buildable with gcc-3.3, 4.0 and 4.1.
This is not automatic.

For example:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73475 (3.3)
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72667 (4.1)
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71339 (4.2)
(there are more, I have been building MacOSX packages with Panther using gcc-3.3,
I found a lot of regressions, and fixes. others found more...)

Then, I must keep buildable with FreeBSD with gcc 3.3, 4.1...it makes me mad.

Recently I use my opteron box because now everyone expect buildable with amd64
even for -devel. This partially includes 4.1 patches (usually extra qualification error).
I'm very lazy and delegate my work, so I just see the report and include.

> On a related note, why do we need six(!) ports of OpenOffice in the
> collection?

No, seven ;)
openoffice.org-1.0/        openoffice.org-1.1/        openoffice.org-2-devel/
openoffice.org-1.1-devel/  openoffice.org-2-RC/       openoffice.org-2/
ooo-build/

1. ooo-build is a minor fork from (former) ximian, include a lot of patches, esp. VBA stuff
and more. Usually many GNU/Linux distro uses it but I don't like to set it as default,
as we must support it as well.
2. openoffice.org-2 : I think no explanation is necessary.
3. openoffice.org-2-devel : usual openoffice.org developer version. I must have keen eyes
to keep it buildable. And for history. I don't do QA for it, apparently we cannot.
if we notice some parts are broken, we must identify two milestones. There might be
FBSD build issues here...I experienced such kind of problem with MacOSX.
http://qa.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=7789
4. openoffice.org-2-RC. When -devel is branched as RC, I had been committed to
openoffice.org-2 port. RC1, RC2..sometimes it reaches to RC7. 
It requires huge burden for users. Linimon suggested to create this. I think
this is reasonable so I created this. Still there might be some FreeBSD issues :(
5. openoffice.org-1.1 : I'd like to keep it because I think it is lighter than 2.x
6. openoffice.org-1.1-devel : still Hamburg team creating cws for it...I'm very sure
that it will become 1.1.6 though, but for future, I'd like to move to openoffice.org-3-devel
to preserve commit log.

> openoffice.org-1.0 and even openoffice.org-1.1 are history; I doubt
> that user interest for these is high (or even existant).

Hmm, maybe ooo-1.0 is a history but still I believe, I need it.
It take very small resources. Only Pentium MMX 266MHz with 64Mbytes of memory
and 6G of HDD is enough.

Hamburg team still maintains issues for 1.1, I think we should maintain them too.
With, 1.1.5 we can read at least OpenDocumentFormat.

> I believe that by getting rid of the lang/gcc-ooo port and 
> openoffice.org-1.0 and openoffice.org-1.1 we will in the end make
> life for our users *and* the FreeBSD build cluster easier.

summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In the future, we can remove lang/gcc-ooo, when following part will have been changed
  to gcc4.1 (or something like that)
  http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Compiler_versions_used_by_port_maintainers_and_release_engineers
   Linux x86 	 all distributions with glibc-2.2.4 or newer 	 OOo/SO RE (Sun Hamburg) hr at openoffice.org 	 GCC 3.4.1 + enum patch + visibility patch 	 build: Sun JDK 1.4.1_03, ship: Sun JRE-1.5 

* If you think some problem with build cluster, I think I can drop some of ports
  for build cluster only.

* We can remove gcc-ooo dependency for openoffice.org-2 port. But not -devel port. Thus
we cannot remove. How do you think?

* I'd like to keep older ones. We have money to buy faster machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks,
-- NAKATA, Maho (maho at FreeBSD.org)