W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > October 2002

Re: [check] Platform Support?

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 01:11:46 +0200
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1035846707.2736.182.camel@bobcat.ods.org>

On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 09:42, Terje Bless wrote:
> Ville raised an issue recently...
> We're aiming to provide both tarballs and RPMs of the Validator and OpenSP
> (the latter to ensure a compatible version is avilable regardless of what
> the OpenSP developers decide to do). Initially, my thought was that we
> would only support Red Hat (8.0) with the RPMs (the tarball is of course
> more or less platform independant). But that might be construed as the W3C
> endorsing a particular vendor...
> My feeling is that we're supporting Red Hat with a binary installation only
> because that is what we are able to support -- implying among other things
> that if a Debian or *BSD packager should volunteer they'd be gratefully
> accepted, of course -- and that this will not be a problem in practice.

> But perhaps the resident W3Cers have guidelines and such they have to
> follow? Opinions on the matter?

Yes, they'd be very much welcome at this point, before too much sweat
has been put into packaging.

> Since Ville is the one who will actually do (is allready doing, for that
> matter) the RPM packaging, he'll have to speak to how Red Hat and version
> specific the RPMs will be (cf. other RPM based ditros).

I haven't really tested my RPMs on anything but RH 7.3 and more
recently, RH 8.0; but even if the validator is platform independent,
there are substantial differences eg. in the Apache (config/webroot)
layout between distributions.  A validator RPM that runs out of the box
on whatever-you-install-it-to isn't very likely to happen, and I have
some doubts about providing such a spec file or source RPM too (though
there wouldn't be that many things one would have to change).

Distributing OpenSP can be even harder, it's platform-dependent and most
OS vendors already have an older version of it, usually bundled in a
"openjade" package or something.  But then again, we can always install
it to a "private" location, so it wouldn't interfere with the vendor's

I'm fine with providing an unofficial RPM of validator and it's
requirements for RH8 elsewhere, but would prefer if it could be
distributed on the validator website (with an "unofficial" label if need

\/ille Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 18:08:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:23 UTC