minutes of ESC call ...

Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com
Thu Mar 10 21:48:25 UTC 2016


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 07:28:58PM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> But isn't this is exactly what we did for years with Seamonkey based
> Mozab driver ... and TBH if /me wouldn't remove it in: [2], we would
> probably still ship the prebuilt binaries of this mess for years. So
> what is wrong to ship parts of our suite that we can't build? Why it
> was the right thing to do, to ship prebuilt Mozab mess for years, but
> is wrong thing to do to ship prebuilt FB?

The LibreOffice project never decided to move from properly building a
dependency to shipping binaries unbuildable on a modern toolchain. I hope it
never will.

> because the FB devs rejected support for the new toolchain
> (C++14/C++17) for the next 10 years (at least) because they need the
> compatibility with WinXP (see the thread from their ML I mentioned in
> my previous mail).

The reason d'etre for FB in LibreOffice at all is that it was a candidate to be
a superior alternative to HSQLDB as a default. Currently however, given the
above, FB hardly seems more attractive than HSQLDB and most certainly not a
worthwhile replacement as default engine, esp. if you take into account the
migration costs to expect.

Anyway, the ESC was where this broader picture has been discussed -- so Id like
not to repeat that discussion here, as the one on the ESC has been quite extensive.



More information about the LibreOffice mailing list