Go-OO vs. OOo - Opinions?

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jul 17 08:40:18 PDT 2010


On 07/17/2010 05:12 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:19:22 -0500, William Immendorf <will.immendorf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> and it increases Mono dependence (Mono, for those who
>> don't know, is a patent trap disguised as a C#/VB compiler).
> 
> Whilst I share the same opinions about mono, you did see the '--disable-mono' flag in
> DJ's build instructions, didn't you? :)
> 


Thank you Matt. :-)  The point of using Go-oo instead of raw OOo is that
I (and whoever else takes on that monster in the future) save quite a
bit of development time by forcing a standard configuration.  This gives
me 1 build to test and install instead of
rm -rf <insert whatever-project-to-test-system-version>/unxlng.pro,
rebuild the whole tree, deliver the entire package again, and install it
routine another 30 times, against a bunch of libraries that I don't care
to have on my system as there is only one consumer.  Plus, we get the
built-in extensions and all the Language packs as a bonus with only a
for-in-do loop.  This was all covered in the upgrade to 2.0.  I did a
half-baked job of about 10 rebuilds last time I did an upgrade to the
package (so it wasn't fully tested, but I'm guessing it was good enough).

-- DJ Lucas

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list