Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

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.

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

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

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

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

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