Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 10/5/2016 2:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 04/10/2016 Mechtilde wrote:

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.


Yes, this is important. As we did for 4.1.2, I would leave PMC members
free to vote and specify what they have done. Nobody will go to jail for
not building from source and "only" testing the binaries that we are
going to make available for download by one million users per week.

We will not be in the situation where we should count votes and, if
needed (and it happened in the past) a release vote can be canceled by
the Release Manager if a blocker bug is found.

So it is more helpful for us to receive an honest +1 from someone who
specifies he only tested binaries than total silence from the same
person because she understood that you can be useful to the project only
if you build from source. It is clear that we will satisfy the mandatory
requirements anyway and with no need for counting votes. So the more
feedback we get, the better.


+1

-
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

[Andrea Pescetti]

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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

[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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

[Patricia Shanahan]

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 - source builds

[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.


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

[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

[Jim Jagielski]

> 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

[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. 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

[Patricia Shanahan]

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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

[Mechtilde]

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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

[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:

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.

@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.


I am doing a build directly from the source distribution, but I've also 
done a "diff -r" between it and the svn, and only found the expected 
differences.



-
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]

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.

@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.


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

[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.



-
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

[Andrea Pescetti]

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!).



Nevertheless, when there are still no objections we should start the
vote in the very next days.


I understand that we want to reduce the vote to a pure formality 
(meaning: being sure that the vote passes), and this is good to do to 
avoid waste of time. Based on what I've done/seen so far, personally and 
through feedback from the list, I'm already quite sure of my +1 when the 
vote starts.


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

[Marcus]

Am 10/03/2016 09:49 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:


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."


wow, *all signed source code packages* ? What a bummer. ;-) OK, I'll do 
that testing tomorrow.


Nevertheless, when there are still no objections we should start the 
vote in the very next days.


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

[Andrea Pescetti]

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

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

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

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


Done on Linux-64, successful.


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.


This might is an assumption in the documentation, but the differences 
between the two are documented at 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127148 and are really minimal: 
the build is not affected at all, so I would consider them equivalent in 
practice.


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

[Patricia Shanahan]

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."



-
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]

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?


Thanks

Marcus


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