date:20161004

Please post only objections to calling a vote on 4.1.3 tomorrow. I will 
treat silence as consent.


As far as I can tell, we are ready to go.

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

Re: Re: In regards to Open Office


Hagar Delest schreef op 04-10-2016 22:04:


My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen
to ODF? Most users would just use OOXML since it would be compatible
with AOO and MS Office. It may lead to frustration because of the
glitches from the conversions. OTOH, it may attract new users.


Personally: I hardly ever do things because of 'rational reasons' of 
that kind. I dislike the very idea of OOXML to begin with and as a 
developer I just lost interest in developing for MS Windows when I was 
about 18. My favourite format is ODF because I do not use MS Office 
anyway (haven't used it since about 2000) and "odt" also looks nice in a 
file browser.


But I'm at pains because for me both OpenOffice and LibreOffice are 
insufficient in terms of quality and robustness and I have started 
writing stuff in Google Docs because (a) it doesn't crash and (b) it 
doesn't throw away my text.


And for me a vital issue is the poor undo functionality in both 
programs.


Every other program out there has 1000x superior undo functionality as 
compared to LibreOffice and OpenOffice.


The smallest text box in some Browser has better undo functionality than 
what we have here. And I cannot live without that, because I often have 
to redo some parts of my text and I cannot constantly save everything 
for fear I am making a mistake.


Hence, today I write in a browser. At least on Linux. On Windows I have 
options (most notably just Wordpad).


-
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 schreef op 03-10-2016 22:57:


Even if it came from a previous format, the goal was to make a
documented format to allow compatibility with other applications. So
not designed from scratch, agreed, but changes made for
interoperability. That's how I understand the target of ODF.


I just feel that even though people may say they are doing so for "good 
reasons" in the end you will have found that they just tried to feed 
their own table. And were doing so for their own reasons. If you are a 
smaller party and you want people to cooperate with you then it helps a 
lot if you can show that non-interoperation has no good reasons for it; 
it is to take those arguments away from critics: now you have no reason 
to not cooperate.


It just stems from the political perspective of someone who finds 
himself in that position.


It's what /anyone/ would do from that position. That doesn't make it 
better or morally superior; it is just a good strategy to take when you 
want to be the one they should take up for consideration.


So I am just saying it was done for their own reasons and not for 
'altruistic' reasons of that kind; many people may say so, but in the 
end it was just self-interest (and there is not really anything wrong 
with it and I guess that is the whole point of that).


These advocates proclaim moral superiority by pretending to be 
altruistic and then condemning those who are not the same.


But in the end we are all the same and we do things for our own reasons, 
and the open source advocates do so also.


It was /not/ done for altruistic reasons and therefore we are the same 
as some company who is also not doing it for altruistic reasons. This 
façade that people are doing things for different reasons than what they 
are actually doing them for, is what creates the issues.


This creates the façade of moral superiority when it is not so; we are 
all just human, after all.


And the whole point of that is that it is okay to do things for your own 
reasons. You don't first have to "prove" that you are doing something 
for good reasons before you can go and do it.





There is no enemy. Agreed. But Users should be aware of the rules.


I must say I found myself in a similar situation when the Opera M2 (mail 
client) started corrupting my data after I had accidentally started the 
program twice (at the same time). My email from that period was mostly 
lost; for how could I ever recover this.


So I am not unsympathetic to wanting to be in a place where you can be 
sure your data is safe.


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

Testing 4.1.3

I have done some basic testing for the following environments and 
language versions:


Windows 7 en_GB
Windows 8.1 en_GB, fr
Windows 10 en_GB
Ubuntu 16.04 en_GB

-
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


Jörg Schmidt schreef op 03-10-2016 12:14:

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



I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to
give the users back the property of their own data.


No, that's not correct.

ODF was written this it was compatible with the capabilities of the 
program OOo.
This is a purely technical issue, and does not mean the ODF would 
therefore not

designed open.


But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open
format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits.


fud, or show me exactly what parts you mean

e.g. the old binary formats has MS disclosed, see:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/cc313105(v=office.14).aspx
https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/gg615407(v=office.14).aspx


The first version of that document was from 2008. So that's been 8 years 
now and counting.


Coincides a bit with my feelings about it. Microsoft was only fiercely 
competiting when it was young, mostly also /because/ it was young (and 
arrogant, hostile).


Typically it is the mindset of a young adolescent and I know Bill Gates 
also had an attitude like that.


-
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 schreef op 03-10-2016 0:27:


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?


You mean to stick with their format? No, if you are creative you will 
create your own format to suit your needs, but you don't create your new 
format for external reasons that have nothing to do with creating an 
application.


The format is useless without application, and since application is its 
only reason to be the focus is always on the application and not on the 
format, because the format merely serves that other thing.


So I'm only saying that ideological reasons are not a good reason to do 
anything. It has to have a use also.


And I only wanted to indicate, as I discover, that no matter how big of 
a mouth people have, in the end they are only doing stuff because it 
works for /them/ also. I think that in the end you find that ideological 
reasons are what people SAY but not what they DO.


The whole Linux ecosystem is so similar to the corporate world that I 
have started seeing them as the same thing.




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.


Well you know that is the façade of open source: that there is any kind 
of guarantee that the thing /would/ be implemented if the thing was 
entirely non-proprietary. Without proprietariness there is usually not 
much of a reason to do anything.


I am just saying that open source nature gives no guarantees at all even 
though they are often projected (but never realized). To go back to 
GIMP, it is a disorganized whole, there is no organisation almost to its 
parts. This lack of organisation (both in the developers and the product 
itself) creates a disorganized picture that is fragmented. Without 
leadership you cannot do anything.


A visionary needs to charge forward himself (or herself, perhaps) and 
not wait for what others do, but Linux developing is 80% waiting for 
what others think and do. Before you can do anything. Some people call 
this "design by committee". It is the death (and dearth) of creativity.


I thought back in the day that OpenOffice (certainly under Sun) was an 
inspired project and it certainly was, I believe. We see today that 
people like mr. Hamilton would probably not survive the bitterness and 
alienation and ghastliness of the rock-steady but hostile approach the 
LibreOffice developers have. There are, in those communities, no elder 
people that have a bit of wisdom to go with: it is all youth and 
normally youth that doesn't know much. I am very grateful people such as 
himself are here.


The only older people in such communities are new weds (to the system) 
that actually know a lot less than the young ones.


It is youth and arrogance of youth for the most part, what I see. In 
communities like what LibreOffice is today...


But as mr. Hamilton just said; ODF is not fully implemented in anything.

Proprietariness doesn't necessarily mean closed source; it means it is 
controlled by a single party (for example).


It means that single party does not have to suffer design by committee 
issues.


That can also mean people are less likely to adopt it (what you do) but 
this is a balance by how much you want to cooperate with people and how 
much you want to plow ahead yourself. Waiting too much for the approval 
of others creates a dead product.


And the only thing LibreOffice is doing is they are improving the 
/technical/ nature of the code (they are all technical people) and they 
only promise (better code checking tools and the like) stuff that 
doesn't mean a better user experience for users, it only means a better 
user experience for developers.


Maybe then after a while they start to focus on the good stuff but thus 
far they have only done

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and update 
as appropriate?


Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue, 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes 
because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now 
denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.


On 10/4/2016 2:47 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/04/2016 10:31 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes



ah, thanks. I've updated some text (e.g., separated the sec issue into
an own paragraph) and updated the link for the BZ issue list as it still
points to 4.0.1.

I'm a bit worried about the many issues that are not fixed, resolved,
closed [1].

But besides this it's OK. So, we are also done here.

[1]
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name=equals=Importance_format=advanced=4.1.3_release_blocker%2B


Marcus




On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?


-
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

4.1.4_release_blocker requested: [Issue 126622] Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX

2016-10-04 Thread bugzilla

Patricia Shanahan  has asked  for 4.1.4_release_blocker:
Issue 126622: Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622

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

4.1.3_release_blocker denied: [Issue 126622] Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX

2016-10-04 Thread bugzilla

Patricia Shanahan  has denied  4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 126622: Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622

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

Re: Question about spell check

2016-10-04 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 13:17:49 -0700
Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10/4/2016 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 10/04/2016 09:44 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> >> I downloaded and installed
> >> Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe. To my distress, when
> >> I first started it, it accepted "color" (US spelling) and rejected
> >> "colour" (English spelling).
> >>
> >> I thought perhaps it picked up my previous use of en-US from my profile,
> >> but I got the same effect installing on a new Windows 10 computer that
> >> has never run any OpenOffice before.
> >>
> >> It is using English, not American, spellings in the user interface, but
> >> I would have expected documents to also default to the installation
> >> language.
> >>
> >> What language is supposed to be used, by default, for user documents?
> >
> > it's the language from the underlying system.
> >
> > The same values are set when it comes to other formattings. E.g., you
> > will see "US-Dollar" for the currency and not "British Pound".
> >
> > However, the UI interface is the language from the installation file.
> >
> > *IMHO* it's OK that not all settings are set to the language of the
> > installation file. However, for the default spell check it's
> > discuss-worthy.
> 
> I'll check that it is not a regression. If it isn't, we can put it aside 
> for now. It does seem strange that I need to do more to get en-GB 
> spelling after installing an en-GB AOO.
> 

On the occasion a User reports this happening we recommend deleting or renaming 
the OO user profile so it generates a fresh profile on next startup. 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds


Patricia Shanahan wrote:

I have built and run from the zip. I have also decompressed and
extracted each of the tarballs, and used "diff -r" to confirm they are
each identical to the zip. I do plan to do the signature and hash checks
for each of the three files.


You may want to add your own signature to the .asc files, concatenating 
it as Dennis suggested. As release documentation explains, this can also 
be done at voting time, but it's good to keep files unchanged during the 
vote.


If you do so, just remember to use
$ svn propset svn:mime-type text/plain *.asc *.md5 *.sha256
(in your case, *.asc will actually be enough) before commit to address 
the binary vs text issue noted by Marcus.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: 4.1.3 building


Jim Jagielski wrote:

Once built and tested, how does one upload? I'm assuming
the prepare-download-tree.sh in aoo-devtools??


All builds have already been uploaded by Ariel for this RC. No need to 
upload anything else.


I did upload a full set of Linux-64 builds to 
http://home.apache.org/~pescetti/openoffice-4.1.3-dev-r1761989/ but due 
to missing communication (a non-delivered notification to this list) we 
are using the ones by Ariel for Linux-64 too.


prepare-download-tree.sh is just a helper that will rearrange your 
builds into the right layout. It works for Linux-64, needs minimal 
tweaks for other systems.


Builds (not needed now, since Ariel has already built all systems) must 
indeed be uploaded through svn commit to 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/binaries/ 
which is quite slow; so Ariel committed one binary at a time. I'm not 
sure how it would work with svn locking if we tried to commit multiple 
builds to the same dir simultaneously; possibly it will just work as 
expected, no idea.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Question about spell check




On 10/4/2016 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/04/2016 09:44 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

I downloaded and installed
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe. To my distress, when
I first started it, it accepted "color" (US spelling) and rejected
"colour" (English spelling).

I thought perhaps it picked up my previous use of en-US from my profile,
but I got the same effect installing on a new Windows 10 computer that
has never run any OpenOffice before.

It is using English, not American, spellings in the user interface, but
I would have expected documents to also default to the installation
language.

What language is supposed to be used, by default, for user documents?


it's the language from the underlying system.

The same values are set when it comes to other formattings. E.g., you
will see "US-Dollar" for the currency and not "British Pound".

However, the UI interface is the language from the installation file.

*IMHO* it's OK that not all settings are set to the language of the
installation file. However, for the default spell check it's
discuss-worthy.


I'll check that it is not a regression. If it isn't, we can put it aside 
for now. It does seem strange that I need to do more to get en-GB 
spelling after installing an en-GB AOO.



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

Re: Question about spell check

2016-10-04 Thread Marcus


Am 10/04/2016 09:44 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

I downloaded and installed
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe. To my distress, when
I first started it, it accepted "color" (US spelling) and rejected
"colour" (English spelling).

I thought perhaps it picked up my previous use of en-US from my profile,
but I got the same effect installing on a new Windows 10 computer that
has never run any OpenOffice before.

It is using English, not American, spellings in the user interface, but
I would have expected documents to also default to the installation
language.

What language is supposed to be used, by default, for user documents?


it's the language from the underlying system.

The same values are set when it comes to other formattings. E.g., you 
will see "US-Dollar" for the currency and not "British Pound".


However, the UI interface is the language from the installation file.

*IMHO* it's OK that not all settings are set to the language of the 
installation file. However, for the default spell check it's discuss-worthy.


Marcus


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

Re: Re: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-04 Thread Hagar Delest



Le 04/10/2016 à 06:50, Peter Kovacs a écrit :

ODF has a better trancperency then OOXML. But beeing open we need to embrace 
and value both formats.



This is the key point for AOO now IMHO.
I think there is a point having import filters to give users a way to open the 
files. Then the natural thing would be to save in ODF.

That's what was done with OOXML: AOO can import but the code to export in OOXML 
is not activated. it does exist somewhere but it has never been implemented by 
design.
My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen to ODF? 
Most users would just use OOXML since it would be compatible with AOO and MS 
Office. It may lead to frustration because of the glitches from the 
conversions. OTOH, it may attract new users.
Note: it may say that bugs like 1900 leap year bug in OOXML are accepted 
(except if it has been fixed since).

If there was at least the possibility to store the information linked to the AOO features 
in OOXML without triggering any "conversion" operation, it may be a 3rd way. 
Does OOXML allow that? I doubt it but perhaps there is room in parts of the format that 
allow some kind of customization. It would be sad however to lose the human readable 
structure of ODF (quite useful in case a file is corrupted or when you need to inspect a 
file in detail).

Hagar

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-04 Thread Marcus

Am 10/04/2016 06:39 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On some of my Windows builds, I get a failure, but doing a new "build
--all", without cleaning, works. That may be worth trying while you are
waiting for more expert advice.

I think there may be problems in whatever is supposed to be enforcing
dependency order, so that a module gets built too soon, while things on
which it depends have not all been built.

On the comparisons between trees, "diff -r A B" does not take that long
and gives full confirmation that A and B are paths to directory trees
with the same files and identical file content.

I've done a "diff -r AOO413 and aoo-4.1.3" and there I can that the
problem is an old "friend".

It's the "fmgridif.cxx" file that stumbles over the gcc compiler bug
about optimization [1]. In my checked-out SVN files I've worked around
that with a modified makefile (thanks to Don).

Note to myself:
Look closer to the log files.

Sorry for the noise. ;-(

So finally, the source package as ZIP file is fine and I can get a 4.1.3
release out of it with the release options.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65009

Marcus

On 10/4/2016 9:11 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 04.10.2016 um 00:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

wow, *all signed source code packages* ?

I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the
.bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to avoid duplication of packages, but AOO413
still
uses the old convention of 3 source packages. (If it helps, I've used
the .bz2 for my tests!).

For my testing, I'm assuming that it is enough to be sure a package is
identical to one I've tested. In particular, the .bz2 and .gz
decompress
to the same .tar file, so I don't even plan to extract one of the tar
files for further checks.

ah, great hint.

I've uncompressed all 3 files, diff'ed the .tar.bz2 and .tar.gz files,
and finally uncompressed all files until the actual dirs/files. All 3
dirs had the same total file size of 1,541,414,704 bytes. This has to
be enough when it comes to "you have to check all source files".

Tomorrow I'll build the release from a package file.

I've uncompressed the ZIP file and started a clean build. Unfortunately,
I get the following error:

[...]
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:

In function
`FmXGridControl::createPeer(com::sun::star::uno::Reference

const&, com::sun::star::uno::Reference
const&)':
fmgridif.cxx:(.text+0x68b2): undefined reference to `non-virtual thunk
to WindowListenerMultiplexer::acquire()'
/usr/bin/ld:
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:

relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol
`_ZThn48_N25WindowListenerMultiplexer7acquireEv' can not be used when
making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solenv/gbuild/LinkTarget.mk:259: recipe for
target
'/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so'

failed
make: ***
[/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so]

Error 1
dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all'

1 module(s):
svx
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/svx/prj

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
by running:

build --from svx

Marcus

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

Re: 4.1.3 building

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 11:03 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> IMO providing different builds for same arch will make it difficult to
> QA, so I will go on with the Linux 64-bit builds. If someone wants to
> build on CentOS 5 32 bit and upload the binaries, please tell and do so.
> 

Unless someone else picks this up (or has picked it up),
let me know and I'll start a build.

Still need insights on the upload process on how to get
these upstream (unless it's simply an svn copy to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/binaries/

PS: I'll be using my ASF signing key.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Question about spell check

I downloaded and installed 
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe. To my distress, when 
I first started it, it accepted "color" (US spelling) and rejected 
"colour" (English spelling).


I thought perhaps it picked up my previous use of en-US from my profile, 
but I got the same effect installing on a new Windows 10 computer that 
has never run any OpenOffice before.


It is using English, not American, spellings in the user interface, but 
I would have expected documents to also default to the installation 
language.


What language is supposed to be used, by default, for user documents?

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

Re: 4.1.3 building

Once built and tested, how does one upload? I'm assuming
the prepare-download-tree.sh in aoo-devtools??


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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds




On 10/4/2016 4:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:


On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.

A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
PMC member's control. See
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval

PMC members please indicate when they have done that test, to help me
decide when to start a vote.


I've build today that branch with release options. Is this sufficient or
do I need to build from the [zip|gz|bzip] file?


I believe it does have to be from the zip etc. but I am not sure. The actual 
wording is:

"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all signed 
source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet all requirements of 
ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all cryptographic signatures, compile 
as provided, and test the result on their own platform."



The release is the tarball/zip itself and not the "tag". So it (the
build) needs to be from the zip/tarball.


I have built and run from the zip. I have also decompressed and
extracted each of the tarballs, and used "diff -r" to confirm they are
each identical to the zip. I do plan to do the signature and hash checks
for each of the three files.

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3

Sorry for the delay: Building OSX as we speak.

A build the week-before-last had no regressions.

> On Sep 25, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> I suggest that people start downloading and testing 4.1.3 as soon as there 
> are binaries they can run. I can't start the formal vote period until we have 
> a complete release candidate.
> 
> -
> 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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

On some of my Windows builds, I get a failure, but doing a new "build 
--all", without cleaning, works. That may be worth trying while you are 
waiting for more expert advice.


I think there may be problems in whatever is supposed to be enforcing 
dependency order, so that a module gets built too soon, while things on 
which it depends have not all been built.


On the comparisons between trees, "diff -r A B" does not take that long 
and gives full confirmation that A and B are paths to directory trees 
with the same files and identical file content.


On 10/4/2016 9:11 AM, Marcus wrote:



Am 04.10.2016 um 00:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

wow, *all signed source code packages* ?


I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to avoid duplication of packages, but AOO413 still
uses the old convention of 3 source packages. (If it helps, I've used
the .bz2 for my tests!).


For my testing, I'm assuming that it is enough to be sure a package is
identical to one I've tested. In particular, the .bz2 and .gz decompress
to the same .tar file, so I don't even plan to extract one of the tar
files for further checks.


ah, great hint.

I've uncompressed all 3 files, diff'ed the .tar.bz2 and .tar.gz files,
and finally uncompressed all files until the actual dirs/files. All 3
dirs had the same total file size of 1,541,414,704 bytes. This has to
be enough when it comes to "you have to check all source files".

Tomorrow I'll build the release from a package file.


I've uncompressed the ZIP file and started a clean build. Unfortunately,
I get the following error:

[...]
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:
In function
`FmXGridControl::createPeer(com::sun::star::uno::Reference
const&, com::sun::star::uno::Reference
const&)':
fmgridif.cxx:(.text+0x68b2): undefined reference to `non-virtual thunk
to WindowListenerMultiplexer::acquire()'
/usr/bin/ld:
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:
relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol
`_ZThn48_N25WindowListenerMultiplexer7acquireEv' can not be used when
making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solenv/gbuild/LinkTarget.mk:259: recipe for
target
'/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so'
failed
make: ***
[/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so]
Error 1
dmake:  Error code 2, while making 'all'

1 module(s):
svx
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/svx/prj

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
by running:

build --from svx


Marcus


-
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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-04 Thread Marcus


Am 10/04/2016 10:04 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus wrote:

@Andrea:
Can you please check the
"apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.tar.gz.sha256" file? It's in
binary mode and not useable for checksum comparsion.


It can be used if you download it.


sorry, no. That's the reason why I posted this. ;-)

> But I've now forced all checksum

files to be treated as text, which should allow you to click on the file
names in
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/source/ and
see them displayed in browser.


Thanks for updating the mimetypes. Now it's working.

Marcus


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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds


> On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>> Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
>>> for a release.
>>> 
>>> A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
>>> have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
>>> PMC member's control. See
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
>>> 
>>> PMC members please indicate when they have done that test, to help me
>>> decide when to start a vote.
>> 
>> I've build today that branch with release options. Is this sufficient or
>> do I need to build from the [zip|gz|bzip] file?
> 
> I believe it does have to be from the zip etc. but I am not sure. The actual 
> wording is:
> 
> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all 
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet 
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all 
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their 
> own platform."
> 

The release is the tarball/zip itself and not the "tag". So it (the
build) needs to be from the zip/tarball.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds


Marcus wrote:

@Andrea:
Can you please check the
"apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.tar.gz.sha256" file? It's in
binary mode and not useable for checksum comparsion.


It can be used if you download it. But I've now forced all checksum 
files to be treated as text, which should allow you to click on the file 
names in 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/source/ and 
see them displayed in browser.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

Testing the reference builds is indeed extremely important, and should 
be most of the testing.


The significance of the builds from source is that a PMC member can only 
cast a binding +1 vote if they have done one, and we need at least three 
binding +1 votes to release. They also need to have a general opinion 
that the release should go out, and all the non-binding votes and 
testing reports may influence that.




On 10/3/2016 10:45 PM, Mechtilde wrote:

Hello,

for my understanding, beside doing a good build it is necessary to have
and totest defined reference builds.

The way I see it, it is not easy to do a good build if you didn't have
enough practice doing it.

I didn't myself any C/C++ build before. So IHMO I will waste time to
improve my build environment instead of testing a reference build

My results of testing belong to the reference builds published as RC1 at
dist.apache.org.

Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.

Otherwise support becomes hell.

Kind regards

Am 04.10.2016 um 01:58 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 3:30 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:




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



Mechtilde Stehmann
--
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## Key-ID 0x141AAD7F



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

Re: Infra notification?