Updates

[David Batchelor]

I am using open office 4.1.2 and I love this product very much.

How do I automatically or manually update any and all new versions that may
come in the future?

Will I be notified by open office?

What steps do I need to take to do any updates, as I want to insure I am
using the latest version at all times?

Dave Batchelor
801 779 9340

Re: Which source files in release?

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 06:24:50PM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> >The idea is to start from a clean check-out, not configured, move the
> >LICENSE, NOTICE, and README files, and delete what is not needed. "what
> >is not needed" should be a relatively short list, including the .svn
> >files and also ext_sources.
> 
> While I would have gone for Bash too,

A shell script may not work, the programs needed to create the packages
may vary in different OS, or even in different versions of the same OS;
I guess that ant tasks provide some sort of system abstraction layer.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Peter Kovacs]

You guys now lost me.
A file should have a consistent state independent of the implementation of
the writing software. And we should take care that our implementation leads
to the same positioning on the paper.

The tool that is able to read what is on the market or the next big thing
wins the race. I would like to see that we try to work in that direction.
I mean the operation should be always similar.
In doubt we can offer the user import tools to decide which behaviour he
wants /needs.

Good night.

Xen  schrieb am So., 2. Okt. 2016, 23:25:

> Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 02-10-2016 23:01:
>
> > It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF
> > conformance requirement.  That is factually not the case, nor does
> > anything in the specification require some clear conformance for
> > interoperability.
>
> Exactly the same issue as with DLNA/UPNP as what I mentioned. People
> found that the standard was too loose to really guarantee
> interoperability and some things were optional that were actually needed
> for full functionality as well.
>
> > ODF may simply become whatever LibreOffice
> > does, just proving that any open-format standard can become a silo.
>
> Proving that the application is the focus point and not the format.
>
> > PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to
> > automatically presume.  For a technical analysis of that, I have a
> > free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with
> > the failures of change-tracking as a case study:
> > .  Click on the title "Tracked Changes" for
> > the free PDF.  Sections 1-2 should make the situation clear enough.
>
> I assume that change-tracking involves the being able to undelete stuff?
>
> There is now a (or was, last summer, a) GSoC project on LibreOffice as
> to that issue.
>
> I saw some of your diagrams. I guess the point was to indicate that the
> cross-line deletes can be done in multiple ways and if two applications
> differ they produce differing results.
>
> It seems so much to me like a ... you might even call it an exercise in
> futility. Getting people to cooperate that all want to do a different
> thing.
>
> The situation is now such that you will not be able to know which ODF
> document was created by what application, and since it is rather
> important to know which one it was, we have a problem here, sir.
>
> Using the same format is now a /hindrance/ rather than a blessing.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Hagar Delest]

Top posting.

In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to compile data 
and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I discovered that there 
was no way to recover the file because it was proprietary. I think that at that 
time the .doc format was not disclosed yet (but I may be wrong). What is sure 
is that I could not get my file back. So I searched the net and found OOo and 
ODF. And I adopted OOo because of the file format (I had already tried OOo 1 
but did not like it).

If OOo had not gained popularity, I'm not sure MS would have created something 
similar with their OOXML. And if the vendor lock-in policy is less an issue 
now, OOo and ODF may be for something. What it would be if they hadn't been 
there?

Just to precise something: I'm not complaining, and I don't say Linux people 
are the best or whatever. I just say that file format is an issue. I admit that 
I think MS do not play fair (but that's logical, else, they would certainly 
lose users).
Up to the user to decide what is more important for him.

But if the focus is the application and not the file format, then what? Make a 
free clone of MS Office? Just a lost cause then.
That's perhaps the problem today. Not that obvious when OOo was the leading 
software. But now that there is LibO, if there is no discussion about what 
should the ODF become, it will be a question of what poison to chose (to use 
Dennis' words).
In this case, there is a point supporting OOXML. But it would slightly become a 
de facto standard (what was .doc, ...). But would never be fully implemented in 
all the applications due to the references to the proprietary functions.

Hagar


Le 02/10/2016 à 23:06, Xen a écrit :

Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56:

Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :

Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without 
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.


I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
standard.


Well Jörg stated this:

ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, 
etc.)
written only for OOo.

So maybe I should have been more specific. The reality is that ODF was not designed; it 
already existed and apparently, was only slightly adjusted and then turned into an 
"open standard".

But please, I want you to also look at the reality and not just the shoulds and 
wants.

No one outside of the open source community really uses ODF. Probably, some new 
application will see reasons to create its own format if only to provide extra 
features or whatever that the old standard doesn't. Also, even if you are not 
commercial and trying to limit what another can do with your files, you can 
have a reason to e.g. not use a zip file format, or whatever else you might say.

So, since ODF was not really designed, and since you can turn any standard into an open 
standard, you could say e.g. Microsoft "should" implement and support that open 
standard, but that's not really related to it being open; being open merely guarantees 
that it would be easier.

But the question was incompatibilities.


By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
applications will be achieved.


Tell that to the person who tried to open a Calligra document in LibreOffice: 
all of the bulleting marks were replaced by something else and the document 
didn't look the same at all.

But moreover I think many "open standards" must or apparently always do accept 
a reduced level of functionality, think of the specification for DLNA/UPNP in which some 
really useful functionality is barely possible. Causing smaller companies that do want to 
provide a good user experience to use their own format or protocol, or to extend the 
thing although hardly possible.

So the reason Microsoft is so hard to make compatible (and many others perhaps) 
is that they do introduce stuff for their own that hardly anyone else can use.

But that's also how you create a better user experience and be honest, most of 
the Linux software world... If I must not speak of AOO here then I will mention 
GIMP, which has the full top menu under the context popup (right mouse button) 
which is such a glaring deficiency (no actually context menu, then) that no 
serious party or company that would want to earn money would ever design such a 
product that way.

GIMP is just near (or nigh) unusable. But I am straying from the subject.

In the best case an open standard is going to force companies to reduce their 
level of functionality. In the worst case it is 

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Peter Kovacs]

Hi Bill,

According to the german Linux Magazin 09/16 which has tested the import
capabilities of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice, softmaker office and WPS,
it depends on your documents. For Apache OpenOffice I found the following:
If you consider the operating system, too. You should make sure that you
install all fonts you used in your documents in order to avoid layout
breaks.

OpenOffice 4.1.2 has problems on the docx format if you use graphics. It
can happen that these graphics are not imported and dissappear.
You could save your writings in this case using the legacy format, however
under certain circumstances OpenOffice treats the pictures differently then
Microsoft and the layout breaks.
The layout difficulties can also happen with tables.

I did not find the time to investigate this further. So I am not sure if we
have development on the mentioned issues already.

I would like to encourage you to try never the less and be careful. Make a
copy of the documents you check and investigate if our project is importing
the document to your satisfaction.
If not we would be happy on feedback for further investigation on our side,
in case of issues.
I will keep an eye for your response and try to help you in a timely
matter. However I do this on my free time.

I understand that this is not the result you are looking for but our
product is not charged through the work that has already done. Our belief
is that only the work that unfinished is worth charging. Currently the only
payment we accept is that you invest your precious time and report your
problems you face at the import to us.

At least that is my current knowledge.
All the best
Peter

Bill Pate  schrieb am So., 2. Okt. 2016, 10:35:

I couldn't find any other email other than this for contact, but I did have
and may still go back to office 365, but my question is, I have collections
of my writings saved at this point after using their set up.  Can Apache
open their Open Office XLM, and do formatting, spell check, page numbering
and have availability to create pdf files from my work, just for starters?


I don't want to download the product if it can't.


Thanks,

Bill

-- 

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.

Re: Bugzilla and User generated content

[Andrea Pescetti]

Peter Kovacs wrote:

there is a Issue Report about adding more templates to Open Office 2.XX.
Again something thats lingering from ancient times.
I wonder how the Process is for such a thing.


There is a technical trade-off between making more templates available 
in the download and not making the download size too big; and there is 
to consider that we want to pack only rather generic templates; the 
Templates websites exists for people to be able to find and download 
specific templates. So the process would probably involve some 
discussion on this list to make sure we don't add many MBytes to the 
installer and that what we add is useful to many users.


There is also an issue about licenses: embedded templates must be 
contributed under ALv2; this is automatic is people contribute their own 
work as a Bugzilla attachment.



Is such a template packaging something we would handle through Bugzilla?


It would affect the source code, so yes, it should be handed on 
Bugzilla. But at times the discussion might happen here, to find a 
generic guideline before wasting work.


And by the way the templates we ship at the moment are not so nice, so 
more templates will surely be welcome.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Xen]

Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 02-10-2016 23:01:


It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF
conformance requirement.  That is factually not the case, nor does
anything in the specification require some clear conformance for
interoperability.


Exactly the same issue as with DLNA/UPNP as what I mentioned. People 
found that the standard was too loose to really guarantee 
interoperability and some things were optional that were actually needed 
for full functionality as well.



ODF may simply become whatever LibreOffice
does, just proving that any open-format standard can become a silo.


Proving that the application is the focus point and not the format.


PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to
automatically presume.  For a technical analysis of that, I have a
free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with
the failures of change-tracking as a case study:
.  Click on the title "Tracked Changes" for
the free PDF.  Sections 1-2 should make the situation clear enough.


I assume that change-tracking involves the being able to undelete stuff?

There is now a (or was, last summer, a) GSoC project on LibreOffice as 
to that issue.


I saw some of your diagrams. I guess the point was to indicate that the 
cross-line deletes can be done in multiple ways and if two applications 
differ they produce differing results.


It seems so much to me like a ... you might even call it an exercise in 
futility. Getting people to cooperate that all want to do a different 
thing.


The situation is now such that you will not be able to know which ODF 
document was created by what application, and since it is rather 
important to know which one it was, we have a problem here, sir.


Using the same format is now a /hindrance/ rather than a blessing.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Xen]

Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56:

Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :
Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without 
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.


I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
standard.


Well Jörg stated this:

ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, 
sxc, etc.)

written only for OOo.

So maybe I should have been more specific. The reality is that ODF was 
not designed; it already existed and apparently, was only slightly 
adjusted and then turned into an "open standard".


But please, I want you to also look at the reality and not just the 
shoulds and wants.


No one outside of the open source community really uses ODF. Probably, 
some new application will see reasons to create its own format if only 
to provide extra features or whatever that the old standard doesn't. 
Also, even if you are not commercial and trying to limit what another 
can do with your files, you can have a reason to e.g. not use a zip file 
format, or whatever else you might say.


So, since ODF was not really designed, and since you can turn any 
standard into an open standard, you could say e.g. Microsoft "should" 
implement and support that open standard, but that's not really related 
to it being open; being open merely guarantees that it would be easier.


But the question was incompatibilities.


By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
applications will be achieved.


Tell that to the person who tried to open a Calligra document in 
LibreOffice: all of the bulleting marks were replaced by something else 
and the document didn't look the same at all.


But moreover I think many "open standards" must or apparently always do 
accept a reduced level of functionality, think of the specification for 
DLNA/UPNP in which some really useful functionality is barely possible. 
Causing smaller companies that do want to provide a good user experience 
to use their own format or protocol, or to extend the thing although 
hardly possible.


So the reason Microsoft is so hard to make compatible (and many others 
perhaps) is that they do introduce stuff for their own that hardly 
anyone else can use.


But that's also how you create a better user experience and be honest, 
most of the Linux software world... If I must not speak of AOO here then 
I will mention GIMP, which has the full top menu under the context popup 
(right mouse button) which is such a glaring deficiency (no actually 
context menu, then) that no serious party or company that would want to 
earn money would ever design such a product that way.


GIMP is just near (or nigh) unusable. But I am straying from the 
subject.


In the best case an open standard is going to force companies to reduce 
their level of functionality. In the worst case it is just not going to 
be adopted and remain a pecularity of a select few that can open their 
own documents but no one else does anyway.


So without regard for principle or ideals, look at the actual outcomes 
today.


- We have one side of the world using a closed standard and the other 
using an open standard, and the only reason the "open product" can (or 
has tried to) read the "closed product" is because of market share. 
OpenOffice *needed* to read MS-Word (for instance) but MS-Word did not 
need to read OpenOffice all that much. Both are really doing their own 
thing and do not communicate much.


They are both "islands" in that sense.

Meanwhile AOO and LibreOffice are infighting and Calligra is too 
under-developed to be worth anything. And seeing my personal 
experiences, support for the format is no guarantee that the document 
will look the same from supporting-application to 
supporting-application.


Hence /format/ seems not to be the focus point but /application/. An 
application needs to have a guaranteed, dependable way of rendering the 
format without quirks.


If it does not, having an open format is of no use really. Microsoft's 
format is probably quirky as hell (or its application is) and that is 
more of a problem than being closed.


So closed or open does not seem to determine much of actual outcomes.

Almost every program can open .doc documents so there never really was a 
threat (at least not today) of your data being "hijacked" or 'locked' 
due to vendor-lock-in. That's not a realistic situation. It is /more/ 
difficult to archive or migrate bookmarks. Of course Linux people 
(perhaps) wanted to have something they could change and alter and 
control 

RE: In regards to Open Office

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think the observation was that ODF was not designed with interoperability 
with Microsoft in mind.  In fact, that case was officially excluded, although 
the work on OpenFormula in ODF 1.2 was designed to accommodate Excel and had 
participation of Microsoft experts.

The folklore about all of this does not account for improvements that have 
happened over time.

For example, it is no longer the case that Office does not support what is 
called strict OOXML, after using transitional originally and also still 
supporting it (but not as the default output as far as I can tell).  That there 
were migration steps was certainly an important legacy consideration for that 
product.  Although not involving such a large user base, the same applied with 
regard to the Star Office formats supported as legacy in OpenOffice and 
ensuring that legacy prospect in the design of ODF too.  (The ODF project was 
originally named the OpenOffice project, with the change made at the last 
minute for ODF 1.0.)

It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF conformance 
requirement.  That is factually not the case, nor does anything in the 
specification require some clear conformance for interoperability.  

I daresay that *no* implementation supports the full features and details of 
ODF, and there is no requirement that *any* implementation do so.  In addition, 
there is extensive under-specification of some features (e.g., nothing about 
macro languages [;<), with many implementation-defined and 
implementation-specific holes.  

What worked for a time was using OpenOffice's support, whatever it is, as what 
others attempted to match in regard to supporting ODF in an interoperable (with 
OpenOffice) manner.  That is no longer a workable guide as OpenOffice and 
LibreOffice extensions and feature differences increase in support of the ODF 
format.  And OpenOffice does not participate in the work toward ODF 1.3 at 
OASIS, although that may not matter in the long run.  ODF may simply become 
whatever LibreOffice does, just proving that any open-format standard can 
become a silo.

The legacy Microsoft Office formats are documented and those documents are 
freely available and are used.  That extends to RTF as well. Meanwhile, there 
are many undocumented uses of ODF, including of binary formats inside ODF 
documents.

It really is a matter of "choose your poison."

 - Dennis

PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to 
automatically presume.  For a technical analysis of that, I have a 
free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with the 
failures of change-tracking as a case study: .  Click 
on the title "Tracked Changes" for the free PDF.  Sections 1-2 should make the 
situation clear enough.

> -Original Message-
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re:  In regards to Open Office
> 
> Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :
> > Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without
> compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
> 
> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
> users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
> alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
> The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
> allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
> standard.
> 
> By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
> format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
> should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
> applications will be achieved.
> 
> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open format.
> There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits. Therefore, the
> situation is not that equal. And for the strict OOXML flavor, MS Office
> doesn't use it as its default format, it was only a mean to get the
> OOXML approved by ISO I think (and we all remember the conditions in
> which it has been done).
> 
> Hagar
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Bugzilla and User generated content

[Peter Kovacs]

Hello all,

there is a Issue Report about adding more templates to Open Office 2.XX. 
Again something thats lingering from ancient times.


I wonder how the Process is for such a thing. It is a voluntary act, and 
in the report the OP offers to help.


Is such a template packaging something we would handle through Bugzilla?


Thanks the clarification :-)

All the best
Peter



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Noob] Code question

[Peter Kovacs]

Awesome!!!

Thanks a lot Patricia. For the link and the definition.

:-D


On 02.10.2016 21:58, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

Here's an answer to part of your question.

On 10/2/2016 9:49 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
...

What does SAL NO VTABLE mean? Is it macro code?

...

It's time to start using the OpenOffice OpenGrok at 
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/


(Or use find and grep in combination, but that takes longer).

Searching for SAL_NO_VTABLE as a Definition in the trunk shows that it 
is a #define in main/sal/inc/sal/types.h


Viewing the code in types.h:

314/** Use this for pure virtual classes, e.g. class SAL_NO_VTABLE Foo 
{ ...
315This hinders the compiler from setting a generic vtable stating 
that
316a pure virtual function was called and thus slightly reduces 
code size.

317*/
318#ifdef _MSC_VER
319#   define SAL_NO_VTABLE __declspec(novtable)
320#else
321#   define SAL_NO_VTABLE
322#endif




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Noob] Code question

[Patricia Shanahan]

Here's an answer to part of your question.

On 10/2/2016 9:49 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
...

What does SAL NO VTABLE mean? Is it macro code?

...

It's time to start using the OpenOffice OpenGrok at 
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/


(Or use find and grep in combination, but that takes longer).

Searching for SAL_NO_VTABLE as a Definition in the trunk shows that it 
is a #define in main/sal/inc/sal/types.h


Viewing the code in types.h:

314/** Use this for pure virtual classes, e.g. class SAL_NO_VTABLE Foo { ...
315This hinders the compiler from setting a generic vtable stating that
316a pure virtual function was called and thus slightly reduces code 
size.

317*/
318#ifdef _MSC_VER
319#   define SAL_NO_VTABLE __declspec(novtable)
320#else
321#   define SAL_NO_VTABLE
322#endif




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Hagar Delest]

Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :

Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without 
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.


I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the users 
back the property of their own data. This was to give users an alternative to 
the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not allow 
intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open standard.

By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open format : if 
the file format is fully documented, then each software should respect that 
format and then the compatibility with other applications will be achieved.

But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open format. There are 
parts that still refer to proprietary bits. Therefore, the situation is not 
that equal. And for the strict OOXML flavor, MS Office doesn't use it as its 
default format, it was only a mean to get the OOXML approved by ISO I think 
(and we all remember the conditions in which it has been done).

Hagar

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Which source files in release?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I lost the thread somewhere, and I want to comment on a remark about who signs 
packages in the release candidates.

  I think there is a "requirement", or probably just an 
  assumption, that the source package be signed by the Release Manager, so 
  if you want to check the package and then replace the signature with 
  yours you can just delete the current .asc files and upload the new 
  ones. If not, I doubt anyone will complain.

I think the signature provided by the committer who constructs any uploaded 
packages should be retained.  It is a matter of signing as the work of the 
committer who did it.  I think the source package should definitely be signed 
by the RM, because the RM usually provides that much, but it doesn't have to 
be.  

After that, any committer whose public certificate is in the release folder 
KEYS file, including the RM, can verify the .asc signature(s) and also *add* 
their own once satisfied by whatever criteria they mean to signify.  

Adding signatures is a matter of creating another --detach-sign --armor 
signature and splicing all of it, including the BEGIN and END markers, onto the 
end of the existing one.  It should still verify and also report both (or more) 
signatures.  Just ensure that the markers are on lines by themselves.

I just added my signature, locally, to the current 

  Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe.asc 

file.  No problem.  The attachment, if it comes through, shows what that looks 
like.

 - Dennis
  


> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 09:35
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Which source files in release?
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/2016 9:24 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> >> The idea is to start from a clean check-out, not configured, move the
> >> LICENSE, NOTICE, and README files, and delete what is not needed.
> "what
> >> is not needed" should be a relatively short list, including the .svn
> >> files and also ext_sources.
> >
> > While I would have gone for Bash too, the ant script in the end does
> the
> > same and it is quite easy to maintain.
> >
> > The trunk version already contains several improvements with respect
> to
> > the one we have in AOO413.
> >
> > I've tried to build a source package for 4.1.3 by applying the two
> > changes I applied to trunk earlier today and that are documented at
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127148
> > to a normal 4.1.3 build tree.
> >
> > The results are at
> > http://home.apache.org/~pescetti/openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src/
> > and comparison with an SVN export gives the expected results.
> >
> > Patricia: feel free to reuse these packages (you may want to remove my
> > signature and add yours in case, after you check them); I didn't
> upload
> > them to SVN to avoid confusion, but I can of course do so if you are
> > going to reuse these. Otherwise no problem at all if you prefer to
> > package/supply the sources differently.
> 
> For 4.1.3, I am in "Don't rock the boat" mode. Anything that gets us to
> release sooner is good. It looks as though you already have the packages
> we need, so please go ahead and SVN them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Patricia
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Patricia Shanahan]

Can this get to e.g. the Wiki? It is excellent advice for users deciding 
whether to use AOO.


On 10/2/2016 9:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

+1

Rory's point is all that matters.  The user wants to know how things
will work *now* in choosing between different products.
Hypotheticals and speculations about format standards are not useful.
(I've worked on both OOXML and ODF specifications and I know from
direct knowledge how baseless that debate is. I also run Office 365,
Apache OpenOffice, and LibreOffice.  I will not offer a preference so
don't ask.)

Neither Microsoft Office nor Apache OpenOffice provide a works-alike
of the other and its preferred/native format.  Each uses the format
of the other by (imperfect) conversions.  That will be apparent when
Bill or anyone has them side-by-side and tests interchange with the
documents that are important to him.

My recommendation to Bill Pate is that he go to the trouble of
installing Apache OpenOffice and checking on what matters for his
particular situation and the documents that are important to him.  He
should not save back on top of his Office 365 documents, but save as
new versions from OpenOffice until he is satisfied that any
deviations are tolerable.

He also needs to know that if support for OOXML (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx)
formats is important for reasons of interchange, that Apache
OpenOffice does not save back in those formats and it won't in the
foreseeable future.  Earlier comments suggest alternatives (e.g.,
going back to .doc, .xls, and .ppt formats or switching to .odt,
.ods, and .odp) and Bill should satisfy himself whether any of that
works in his situation.  It may also matter whether he requires
Mobile/Tablet support and an alternative to desktop Outlook (if used
in his Office 365 work), frequent security and feature updates, etc.

It doesn't matter what others think sucks.  It matters what will
actually work for Bill.  The safest step for Bill is to try both
while he can have them side-by-side and then satisfy himself.

- Dennis



-Original Message- From: Rory O'Farrell
[mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 07:00 To:
dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Xen  Subject: Re:
 In regards to Open Office


Top posting:

This thread is going off at half cock!

Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost
certain to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.
Why this should be and whether the precise file format is
responsible is hardly relevant.

Rory


On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200 Xen  wrote:


Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:


And let me say it absolutely clear: I've heard how MS has
denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that MS
reality of ODF recognized. Only with better software, we can
beat MS, not with stupid sayings.


It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse
and worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the
most part Linux is not improving either...


I believe in the competition for the better software, not I
believe

in

the power of ideological talk.


Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.

Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things
are

make

believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is
orange, other people will start believing it too.

Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their
great community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day.
But saying it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see
the same on television if I have stayed away from it for a while
(it will be

called

nationalism).

Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this.

Regards.


-



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org

For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org





-- Rory O'Farrell 

-



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org

For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org

For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Xen]

Rory O'Farrell schreef op 02-10-2016 15:59:

Top posting:

This thread is going off at half cock!

Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain
to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.  Why this
should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly
relevant.

Rory


Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without 
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation. I think that 
should be allowed to be mentioned. It was only to correct the sentiment 
that "it's Microsoft's fault once again". If you don't want skewed 
sentiments to be corrected, then don't utter them, please. Then we all 
won't talk and none of us will have a problem.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[Noob] Code question

[Peter Kovacs]

Hello all.

I am reviewing code whenever I find time.
I find the code sometimes hard to read, due lack of experience with c++.
So I would like to ask if someone can confirm / explain the following
definition to me:
File:  basicmanagerrepository.hxx
Class BasicManager;

Namespace basic {
  class SAL NO VTABLE BasicManagerCreationlistener {
...

Question:
I am irritated by the lonely global class BasicManager.
So the file defines the class global and the other class in the name space
basic? (Both are independent by this definition( not talking about the
implementaition)?
What does SAL NO VTABLE mean? Is it macro code?

You find the file in main/basic/inc/basic

All the best
Peter
-- 

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Hagar Delest]

Top posting.

I was of course talking about Office Open XML, also known as OpenXML or OOXML 
developed by Microsoft and adopted by ECMA International as ECMA-376 
 in 2006.
I've mostly seen ODF for the OpenOffice.org XML file format.

By reading again OP message, I see that he said "Can Apache open their Open Office XLM". 
In the context of his message I thought that it was meant for the file format used by MS Office 
since OP had a "writings saved at this point after using their set up".

Hagar


Le 02/10/2016 à 14:05, Jörg Schmidt a écrit :

From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net]
Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with
anything else than MS Office.

And what is ODF?

ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, 
etc.)
written only for OOo.

And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is an
ISO standard second class.

ODF:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66
363

OOXML:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51
463


And let me say it absolutely clear:
I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that 
MS
reality of ODF recognized.
Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.

I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in the power
of ideological talk.



Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: In regards to Open Office

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

Rory's point is all that matters.  The user wants to know how things will work 
*now* in choosing between different products.  Hypotheticals and speculations 
about format standards are not useful.  (I've worked on both OOXML and ODF 
specifications and I know from direct knowledge how baseless that debate is. I 
also run Office 365, Apache OpenOffice, and LibreOffice.  I will not offer a 
preference so don't ask.)

Neither Microsoft Office nor Apache OpenOffice provide a works-alike of the 
other and its preferred/native format.  Each uses the format of the other by 
(imperfect) conversions.  That will be apparent when Bill or anyone has them 
side-by-side and tests interchange with the documents that are important to him.

My recommendation to Bill Pate is that he go to the trouble of installing 
Apache OpenOffice and checking on what matters for his particular situation and 
the documents that are important to him.  He should not save back on top of his 
Office 365 documents, but save as new versions from OpenOffice until he is 
satisfied that any deviations are tolerable.

He also needs to know that if support for OOXML (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) formats 
is important for reasons of interchange, that Apache OpenOffice does not save 
back in those formats and it won't in the foreseeable future.  Earlier comments 
suggest alternatives (e.g., going back to .doc, .xls, and .ppt formats or 
switching to .odt, .ods, and .odp) and Bill should satisfy himself whether any 
of that works in his situation.  It may also matter whether he requires 
Mobile/Tablet support and an alternative to desktop Outlook (if used in his 
Office 365 work), frequent security and feature updates, etc.

It doesn't matter what others think sucks.  It matters what will actually work 
for Bill.  The safest step for Bill is to try both while he can have them 
side-by-side and then satisfy himself.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 07:00
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Xen 
> Subject: Re:  In regards to Open Office
> 
> 
> Top posting:
> 
> This thread is going off at half cock!
> 
> Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to
> cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.  Why this
> should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly
> relevant.
> 
> Rory
> 
> 
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200
> Xen  wrote:
> 
> > Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
> >
> > > And let me say it absolutely clear:
> > > I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
> > > noticed that MS
> > > reality of ODF recognized.
> > > Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
> >
> > It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and
> > worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part
> > Linux is not improving either...
> >
> > > I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe
> in
> > > the power
> > > of ideological talk.
> >
> > Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
> >
> > Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are
> make
> > believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange,
> > other people will start believing it too.
> >
> > Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great
> > community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying
> > it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on
> > television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be
> called
> > nationalism).
> >
> > Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this.
> Regards.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Rory O'Farrell]

Top posting:

This thread is going off at half cock!

Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to cause 
some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.  Why this should be and 
whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly relevant.

Rory


On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200
Xen  wrote:

> Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
> 
> > And let me say it absolutely clear:
> > I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
> > noticed that MS
> > reality of ODF recognized.
> > Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
> 
> It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and 
> worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part 
> Linux is not improving either...
> 
> > I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in 
> > the power
> > of ideological talk.
> 
> Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
> 
> Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are make 
> believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange, 
> other people will start believing it too.
> 
> Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great 
> community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying 
> it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on 
> television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be called 
> nationalism).
> 
> Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this. Regards.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Xen]

Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:


And let me say it absolutely clear:
I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
noticed that MS
reality of ODF recognized.
Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.


It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and 
worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part 
Linux is not improving either...


I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in 
the power

of ideological talk.


Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.

Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are make 
believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange, 
other people will start believing it too.


Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great 
community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying 
it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on 
television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be called 
nationalism).


Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this. Regards.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[RA Stehmann]

Am 02.10.2016 um 14:05 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

> 
> And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is 
> an
> ISO standard second class.
> 
I disagree with the second half sentence for a variety of reasons. But
that is no topic for this mailing list.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net] 

> Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with 
> anything else than MS Office. 

And what is ODF?

ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, 
etc.)
written only for OOo.

And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is an
ISO standard second class.

ODF:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66
363

OOXML:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51
463


And let me say it absolutely clear:
I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that 
MS
reality of ODF recognized.
Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.

I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in the power
of ideological talk.



Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: In regards to Open Office

[Hagar Delest]

Yes it can.
Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with anything else than MS 
Office. So once you switch to Apache OpenOffice, save in native format (.odt 
for text). MS Office can read that (even if it does not always to a very good 
job at it).
AOO can't save in OOXML but AOO can save in .doc format quite well. Even if 
small glitches can occur due to the MS Office file format (again).

You're not subscribed to the list, you may miss other replies.

Hagar


Le 02/10/2016 à 10:25, Bill Pate a écrit :

I couldn't find any other email other than this for contact, but I did have and 
may still go back to office 365, but my question is, I have collections of my 
writings saved at this point after using their set up.  Can Apache open their 
Open Office XLM, and do formatting, spell check, page numbering and have 
availability to create pdf files from my work, just for starters?


I don't want to download the product if it can't.


Thanks,

Bill




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

In regards to Open Office

[Bill Pate]

I couldn't find any other email other than this for contact, but I did have and 
may still go back to office 365, but my question is, I have collections of my 
writings saved at this point after using their set up.  Can Apache open their 
Open Office XLM, and do formatting, spell check, page numbering and have 
availability to create pdf files from my work, just for starters?


I don't want to download the product if it can't.


Thanks,

Bill