OpenOfficeLangPacks

Differences between revisions 1 and 3 (spanning 2 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2006-06-23 15:27:49 →
Size: 1878
Editor: ALagny-109-1-9-177
Comment: new page
← Revision 3 as of 2006-07-06 16:39:34 → ⇥
Size: 2684
Editor: chiark
Comment: review comments
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 5: Line 5:
 * '''Contributors''': MatthiasKlose  * '''Contributors''': MatthiasKlose, ChrisHalls
Line 46: Line 46:

== Review comments ==

 * This still seems a bit sketchy. There are empty sections which you should put some content in, or rename and/or amalgamate with others, or delete, as appropriate. Note that the standard sections in the template are suppposed to be a guideline and a helpful hint, not a rigourous standard. -iwj
 * The proposed data flow and build process still seems confusing to me, perhaps because I don't know how it works at the moment. It would be nice if you could perhaps estate (semi-diagramatically perhaps) the build dataflow before, and the build dataflow after. Another possible approach to this criticism would be to supply some references to the specification of the existing approach (but I doubt that there is in fact such an existing specification). -iwj

Summary

Build the OOo l10n and help packs in less CPU time, and without duplicating the OOo source in the archive.

Rationale

Currently the archive hosts two (identical) 450MB OOo source packages to be able to build the l10n and help packages independently from the OOo packages containing the binaries. Get rid of the duplicated source. The time required to build the language packages exceeds the time to build the binary packages.

Use cases

  • A translation team wants to test the current state of an OOo translation. The translation needs to be exported from Rosetta, converted to the GSI format and built (which currently requires bandwidth and a huge amount of build time).
  • An export from Rosetta should be checked for correctness (using the OOo lang tools)
  • The time to introduce a new OOo version into the distribution should be shortened.

Scope

Design

From the build (when the OOo binaries are built), build an OOo-l10n-dev package, containing

  • all the localize.sdf files
  • language tools (localize, transex3, ...)
  • the sources for OOo/solenv

  • the HelpLinker binary

  • other files required

Modify the build system (dmake) to be able to build the resource files for translations in all 32 subdirectories containing .sdf files independently from the binaries, lowering the build time for the language and help packs.

Implementation

Code

Data preservation and migration

Outstanding issues

BoF agenda and discussion

Review comments

  • This still seems a bit sketchy. There are empty sections which you should put some content in, or rename and/or amalgamate with others, or delete, as appropriate. Note that the standard sections in the template are suppposed to be a guideline and a helpful hint, not a rigourous standard. -iwj
  • The proposed data flow and build process still seems confusing to me, perhaps because I don't know how it works at the moment. It would be nice if you could perhaps estate (semi-diagramatically perhaps) the build dataflow before, and the build dataflow after. Another possible approach to this criticism would be to supply some references to the specification of the existing approach (but I doubt that there is in fact such an existing specification). -iwj

CategorySpec

OpenOfficeLangPacks (last edited 2009-07-22 10:08:43 by p54A1325A)