Am 17.11.18 um 12:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Am 17.11.18 um 10:09 schrieb Marcus:
Am 16.11.18 um 22:44 schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 11/14/2018 01:09 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 14.11.18 um 18:05 schrieb Kay Schenk:
I got started a little on this yesterday. Maybe some guidance on
fixed bugs that need
Hi Marcus,
Am 17.11.18 um 10:09 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 16.11.18 um 22:44 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>> On 11/14/2018 01:09 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 14.11.18 um 18:05 schrieb Kay Schenk:
I got started a little on this yesterday. Maybe some guidance on
fixed bugs that need emphasis and any
Am 16.11.18 um 22:44 schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 11/14/2018 01:09 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 14.11.18 um 18:05 schrieb Kay Schenk:
I got started a little on this yesterday. Maybe some guidance on
fixed bugs that need emphasis and any dictionary updates and anything
else. I have some time this week here
On 11/14/2018 01:09 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 14.11.18 um 18:05 schrieb Kay Schenk:
I got started a little on this yesterday. Maybe some guidance on fixed
bugs that need emphasis and any dictionary updates and anything else.
I have some time this week here and there.
thanks Kay, this would be
Am 14.11.18 um 18:05 schrieb Kay Schenk:
I got started a little on this yesterday. Maybe some guidance on fixed
bugs that need emphasis and any dictionary updates and anything else. I
have some time this week here and there.
thanks Kay, this would be great. If you want I can check the notes
I got started a little on this yesterday. Maybe some guidance on fixed
bugs that need emphasis and any dictionary updates and anything else. I
have some time this week here and there.
--
MzK
"Less is MORE."
On 11/11/2018 07:13 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
I think the next topic is writing release notes.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.6+Release+Notes
Who is available for this? The release blocker 4.1.6 "+" is telling you
what is in the release.
There is one exception. One Bug about updates is about our update
Formating was fine in my Email client...
Wired. I just copied it quickly from a calc sheet. I upload it on the
release page.
All the best
Peter
On 11.11.18 11:56, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 10.11.18 um 14:06 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Thanks for your efforts and participation. It
Hi Peter,
Am 10.11.18 um 14:06 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Thanks for your efforts and participation. It is no issue if you are
> early or late. Important is that you believe in the release.
>
> We have following test results:
>
> *Who* *Passed**Binding* *Windows* *
> *
Le 09/11/2018 à 17:39, Matthias Seidel a écrit :
Hi Jim,
Am 08.11.18 um 16:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Could we/Should we have some of us tweet that 4.1.6-RC1 is available and "ask"
people to try it out...?
I posted it on Google+ a while ago...
Regards,
Matthias
Posted in the English
Thanks for your efforts and participation. It is no issue if you are
early or late. Important is that you believe in the release.
We have following test results:
*Who* *Passed**Binding* *Windows* *
* *Linunx**
* *MacOs* *
* *Language
Hi Jim,
Am 08.11.18 um 16:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Could we/Should we have some of us tweet that 4.1.6-RC1 is available and
> "ask" people to try it out...?
I posted it on Google+ a while ago...
Regards,
Matthias
>
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.11.18 um
Hi Peter and all,
+1
The Release Candidate 1 for 4.1.6 has passed my tests.
I am sorry but I am late.
I installed japanese version and en-GB langpack on my Windows 10 machine.
They looks good.
Thanks.
khirano
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:52 PM Peter Kovacs wrote:
> Let's try again.
>
>
>
Peter Kovacs wrote:
I extend the deadline until Saturday Morning CET.
Thanks! I've completed my tests tonight.
The Release Candidate 1 for 4.1.6 has passed my tests.
[X] yes / +1 (binding)
I have tested
Linux Release 64 bit
[X] source / binding
[X] binary
Further details: I've
Could we/Should we have some of us tweet that 4.1.6-RC1 is available and "ask"
people to try it out...?
> On Nov 7, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Marcus wrote:
>
> Am 07.11.18 um 23:59 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> On 06/11/2018 Marcus wrote:
>>> Why no own builds?
>>> At the moment I'm very busy with my
Hi Andrea,
I extend the deadline until Saturday Morning CET. I hope this gives
everybody who wants to check another view days.
All the best
Peter
On 08.11.18 00:28, Marcus wrote:
> Am 07.11.18 um 23:59 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> On 06/11/2018 Marcus wrote:
>>> Why no own builds?
>>> At the
Could we/Should we have some of us tweet that 4.1.6-RC1 is available and "ask"
people to try it out...?
> On Nov 7, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Marcus wrote:
>
> Am 07.11.18 um 23:59 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> On 06/11/2018 Marcus wrote:
>>> Why no own builds?
>>> At the moment I'm very busy with my
Am 07.11.18 um 23:59 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 06/11/2018 Marcus wrote:
Why no own builds?
At the moment I'm very busy with my day job and just recently I got
back a repaired laptop. So, had not yet the time to update my build
system
Since I see that we don't have many people who built
On 06/11/2018 Marcus wrote:
Why no own builds?
At the moment I'm very busy with my day job and just recently I got back
a repaired laptop. So, had not yet the time to update my build system
Since I see that we don't have many people who built from source yet and
the vote deadline is
Am 01.11.2018 um 07:52 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
The Release Candidate 1 for 4.1.6 has passed my tests.
[X] yes / +1
[ ] no / -1
I have tested
Windows Release
[ ] source / binding
[X] binary
Windows 10 64-bit
German with en-US lang pack
- Verified signatures and SHA256 and
+1 (binding) from me.
The Release Candidate 1 for 4.1.6 has passed my tests.
[x] yes / +1
[ ] no / -1
I have tested
Windows Release
[x] source / binding
[x] binary
I built from source on Windows 10 (64-bit)
Binaries were tested on Windows 7 (64-bit and 32-bit)
Linux Release 32
Hi Matthias
> On November 6, 2018 at 2:35 PM Matthias Seidel mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
>
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> Am 02.11.18 um 11:35 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>
> > > Hi Matthias, all
> >
> > > >
> >> On November 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM Matthias Seidel
>
+1
Ubuntu 64 bit
Regards
Josef
Am 06.11.18 um 11:45 schrieb Pedro Lino:
--
The Release Candidate 1 for 4.1.6 has passed my tests.
[x ] yes / +1
I have tested
Hi Pedro,
Am 02.11.18 um 11:35 schrieb Pedro Lino:
> Hi Matthias, all
>
>
>> On November 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM Matthias Seidel > mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
>>
>> I have just corrected the script to have identical output for SHA256 and
>> SHA512.
>>
> Thank you! It works
--
The Release Candidate 1 for 4.1.6 has passed my tests.
[x ] yes / +1
I have tested
Windows Release
[ x] binary
Installed the Full Portuguese (pt) installer plus
Ok. This is done.
On 05.11.18 23:21, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> So now the rules state I should sign all artifacts. Others may
>> concatenate their signature if they want. Do we follow this?
>
> No, you need to sign only three files, the three source files. And you
> should
Peter Kovacs wrote:
So now the rules state I should sign all artifacts. Others may
concatenate their signature if they want. Do we follow this?
No, you need to sign only three files, the three source files. And you
should remove the existing three corresponding .asc files since multiple
actually I tried to make a clear form and got confused all the way.
Since there is no change in process, please follow the instructions below.
We should have a fixed email for this, maybe we have and I just lacked
the memory to remeber.
So now the rules state I should sign all artifacts.
Am 05.11.18 um 19:27 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did correct all sha512 files for the Windows builds, so the ones for
>> macOS and Linux32/64 remain to be updated.
>>
> What needs to be done, exactly?
You are faster than I can
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
>
> I did correct all sha512 files for the Windows builds, so the ones for
> macOS and Linux32/64 remain to be updated.
>
What needs to be done, exactly?
-
To
Hi Jim,
Am 03.11.18 um 19:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I'm not exactly sure 100% what needs to be changed... Plus, if we change the
> names of files, don't we need to ensure that the sourceforge links are
> correct as well? Has that been looked at?
I assume you are referring to our discussion
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
In his second vote announcement Peter also specified that to cast a
non-binding vote one still had to download and compile the source on
ones own machine and then test that binary. This is far over and above
anything that has ever been required for a non-binding vote.
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> My practice had been to validate the source release and test the Mac
> releases. To me that was enough.
+1
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:09 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/5/2018 1:41 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
>> Source signing will be done tonight.
>> Thanks Andrea for the detailed line-up.
>> Also I hope all requirements are met in the second mail.
>> However there seems a
On 11/5/2018 1:41 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
> Source signing will be done tonight.
> Thanks Andrea for the detailed line-up.
> Also I hope all requirements are met in the second mail.
> However there seems a misunderstanding on Keith side. It is not required to
> vote all test marks.
> It is
Source signing will be done tonight.
Thanks Andrea for the detailed line-up.
Also I hope all requirements are met in the second mail.
However there seems a misunderstanding on Keith side. It is not required to
vote all test marks.
It is required to fill in general and then what OS Version you
On 11/4/2018 6:07 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 31/10/2018 Marcus wrote:
>> To make it an official vote I miss the following information:
>> - What exactly do we vote for (link to the source and binaries)?
>
> Yes please, let's try to be reasonably serious about releases: due to
> legal
Hi Andrea,
Am 05.11.18 um 00:07 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 31/10/2018 Marcus wrote:
>> To make it an official vote I miss the following information:
>> - What exactly do we vote for (link to the source and binaries)?
>
> Yes please, let's try to be reasonably serious about releases: due to
>
On 31/10/2018 Marcus wrote:
To make it an official vote I miss the following information:
- What exactly do we vote for (link to the source and binaries)?
Yes please, let's try to be reasonably serious about releases: due to
legal implications (among other things), there are some formalities
I'm not exactly sure 100% what needs to be changed... Plus, if we change the
names of files, don't we need to ensure that the sourceforge links are correct
as well? Has that been looked at?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Am 02.11.18 um 11:35 schrieb Pedro Lino:
> Hi Matthias, all
>
>
>> On November 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM Matthias Seidel > mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
>>
>> I have just corrected the script to have identical output for SHA256 and
>> SHA512.
>>
> Thank you! It works correctly with
+1.
Il giorno Ven 2 Nov 2018, 11:29 Jim Jagielski ha scritto:
> +1 for release! Thx for RMing.
>
> > On Nov 1, 2018, at 2:52 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> >
> > Let's try again.
> >
> >
> > Welcome to the vote on Release Candidate 1 for the 4.1.6 Release.
> >
> > The vote will close on Wednesday
Hi Matthias, all
> On November 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM Matthias Seidel mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
>
> I have just corrected the script to have identical output for SHA256 and
> SHA512.
>
Thank you! It works correctly with any program!
>
> > > AFAIK the data is
+1 for release! Thx for RMing.
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 2:52 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>
> Let's try again.
>
>
> Welcome to the vote on Release Candidate 1 for the 4.1.6 Release.
>
> The vote will close on Wednesday the 7.11.2018.
>
> The binaries and the source for testing are to be taken from:
Hi Marcus,
Am 02.11.18 um 00:28 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.11.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>>> Please can you check it with the board-tools of Ubuntu? I think you
>>> also
>>> should have sha256sum and sha512sum as commands.
>>
>> It does work for the src file with sha512sum so Double Commander
Am 02.11.2018 um 00:21 schrieb Pedro Lino:
Hi Marcus
it doesn't matter if you have the base, good or bad or ... package. But
the version number must be the same for all.
Correct:
libgstreamer-plugins-base-0.10-0
libgstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10-0
Problem:
libgstreamer-plugins-base-0.10-0
Am 02.11.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Pedro Lino:
Please can you check it with the board-tools of Ubuntu? I think you also
should have sha256sum and sha512sum as commands.
It does work for the src file with sha512sum so Double Commander is less versatile. But
wouldn't it make sense to keep the two
Hi Marcus
> it doesn't matter if you have the base, good or bad or ... package. But
> the version number must be the same for all.
>
> Correct:
> libgstreamer-plugins-base-0.10-0
> libgstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10-0
>
> Problem:
> libgstreamer-plugins-base-0.10-0
> libgstreamer-plugins-bad-1.0-0
Hi Marcus
> Please can you check it with the board-tools of Ubuntu? I think you also
> should have sha256sum and sha512sum as commands.
It does work for the src file with sha512sum so Double Commander is less
versatile. But wouldn't it make sense to keep the two SHA files similar (i.e.
*?
Am 01.11.2018 um 09:59 schrieb Pedro Lino:
I really would like to build from source (at least under Linux)!
But first I found a problem checking the src file integrity.
I'm using Double Commander's option Verify Checksum and all sha256 work
correctly.
However for the sha512, the content of
Am 01.11.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Pedro Lino:
On November 1, 2018 at 1:09 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
...
libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 is already the newest version (1.8.3-1ubuntu0.2).
libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 set to manually installed.
libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 is already the newest
Hi Jim, all
> On November 1, 2018 at 1:09 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...
> > libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 is already the newest version
> > (1.8.3-1ubuntu0.2).
> > libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 set to manually installed.
> > libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 is already the newest version
> >
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>
> Hi Patricia
>
> I'm taking this opportunity to write to you directly (I hope this is not a
> problem)
>
> Do you have experience building in Linux?
>
>
...
> libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 is already the newest version
>
Your mail actually went to dev@, which is fine because I have no
experience building AOO on Linux, and dev@ is the right place to ask for
help. You should use a more appropriate subject.
On 11/1/2018 4:49 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
Hi Patricia
I'm taking this opportunity to write to you directly
I did not see this post from you.
Which Distro do you use?
You need Gstreamer 0.1.0 for OpenOffice 4.1.x series, if you want
Multimedia.
Support for Gstreamer 1.0.0 is included in 4.2.0.
All the best
Peter
On 01.11.18 12:49, Pedro Lino wrote:
> Hi Patricia
>
> I'm taking this opportunity to
Hi Patricia
I'm taking this opportunity to write to you directly (I hope this is not a
problem)
Do you have experience building in Linux?
I have found this obstacle but no one on the dev mailing list answered (which
worries me since I have been trying to contribute to this project...)
Any
Hi all
I really would like to build from source (at least under Linux)!
But first I found a problem checking the src file integrity.
I'm using Double Commander's option Verify Checksum and all sha256 work
correctly.
However for the sha512, the content of the file is
Let's try again.
Welcome to the vote on Release Candidate 1 for the 4.1.6 Release.
The vote will close on Wednesday the 7.11.2018.
The binaries and the source for testing are to be taken from:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.6-RC1/
We follow the policy for the Apache
Where can I download 4.1.6 RC1 for macOS?
On 2018-10-31, 3:20 PM Peter Kovacs wrote concerning "[vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6
RC1":
--
_
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist
Since this is a release vote, it is governed by the Apache policy on
Release Approval at
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download
all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that
Hello all,
This is about a small maintenance Release. We fix various Issues.
Please take your vote.
The Release Candidate is good for production:
[ ] yes / +1
[ ] no / -1
My vote is based on
[ ] binding (member of PMC)
[ ] I have build and tested the RC from source
[ ] I have tested the
61 matches
Mail list logo
