Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Just a FYI that CentOS7 does not "officially" support 32bit. It does provide an install image, but there isn't even an EPEL repo for it. So far, this hasn't been an issue w/ building 4.2.0-dev > On Jul 4, 2018, at 11:39 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 03/07/2018 Jim Jagielski wrote: >> +1.

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

On 03/07/2018 Jim Jagielski wrote: +1. I'll start on a CentOS7 VM. Makes sense to me. So our indication for the Release Notes would be something like "OpenOffice 4.2.0 is built on CentOS 7 and is expected to run on Linux-based systems released in YEAR or later (CentOS 7, Ubuntu XYZ...)".

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

+1. I'll start on a CentOS7 VM. BTW, up to now I've been using VMware Fusion, but will likely start using Vbox instead... I'm assuming most people are using that anyway and it would be nice to be able to share the VMs with others. > On Jul 3, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > I think

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

I think there was no big support for supporting gstreamer 0.1.0 on 4.2. branch. If those who need it , they should help. Also I think it makes more sense in such a case to keep maintenance for 4.1.x branch. That means we will have to move to centOS7 for building. On 03.07.2018 14:00, Jim

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Oops. Forget that. Even CentOS6 doesn't support gstreamer-1.0. > On Jul 3, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > So have we come up w/ an agreed upon decision? Are we baselining > gstreamer-1.0, and our community/build-systems will be based on > CentOS6 (ie: dropping "official" support

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

So have we come up w/ an agreed upon decision? Are we baselining gstreamer-1.0, and our community/build-systems will be based on CentOS6 (ie: dropping "official" support for CentOS5)? If so, I can start on some 4.2.0-dev r1834788 Linux builds... (I'm already trying macOS builds but having some

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

After some thinkibg, I agree with Dave. The Distributions affeced should help in supporting the backward compability. We can support and guide through the process. If we find volunteers it could be a small step back into stronger Linux Distribution support. If no one is interested it saves us

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Am 06.06.2018 um 21:37 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Jun 6, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 06.06.2018 um 19:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski: Let's not focus on CentOS5 vs CentOS6 for now... the issue is that gstreamer-1.0 requires that previously supported Linux OSs and platforms will no longer

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Marcus wrote: > > Am 06.06.2018 um 19:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Let's not focus on CentOS5 vs CentOS6 for now... the issue is that >> gstreamer-1.0 requires that previously supported Linux OSs and platforms >> will no longer be supported; that is, our

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Am 06.06.2018 um 19:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski: Let's not focus on CentOS5 vs CentOS6 for now... the issue is that gstreamer-1.0 requires that previously supported Linux OSs and platforms will no longer be supported; that is, our community builds will no longer work for them. sure, it's about

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Let's not focus on CentOS5 vs CentOS6 for now... the issue is that gstreamer-1.0 requires that previously supported Linux OSs and platforms will no longer be supported; that is, our community builds will no longer work for them. Are we OK with that? That is the main consideration. Everything

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > ​I think we'd need to go up to CentOS7 for gstreamer 1.x. Anyway...point > taken. Hmmm... I seem to recall it building on CentOS6. I could be mistaken ;)

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

That's why the simplest solution is to move to centOS7 for now. We need to debug the gstreamer support too. Even if it is not important to all users /devs. Am 6. Juni 2018 00:03:56 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel : >Am 05.06.2018 um 23:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >> We have decided this without

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Am 05.06.2018 um 23:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > We have decided this without considering that gstreamer gstreamer 1.0.0 can > not compile there. > I am not sure, if we compile gstreamer with Damjan's symbol patch. Will it > the work despite gstreamer has to be build with a different gcc Version?

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

We have decided this without considering that gstreamer gstreamer 1.0.0 can not compile there. I am not sure, if we compile gstreamer with Damjan's symbol patch. Will it the work despite gstreamer has to be build with a different gcc Version? (I lack the experience on this, but my expectation

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Am 05.06.2018 um 23:26 schrieb Marcus: > Am 05.06.2018 um 00:15 schrieb Kay Schenk: >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> I am setup to be able to provide both CentOS5 Linux builds, for "old" >>> systems (and gstreamer 0.10), and Ubuntu-or-CentOS6 Linux builds for >>>

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Am 05.06.2018 um 08:14 schrieb Dave Fisher: Those who need to support older versions of Centos with newer versions of Openoffice should come forward and do the work! also a valid argument. ;-) Marcus On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:59 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: How about we ask the community if we

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Am 05.06.2018 um 00:15 schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am setup to be able to provide both CentOS5 Linux builds, for "old" systems (and gstreamer 0.10), and Ubuntu-or-CentOS6 Linux builds for newer ones (and gstreamer 1.x), so if that is the

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Those who need to support older versions of Centos with newer versions of Openoffice should come forward and do the work! Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:59 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > How about we ask the community if we need to support centOS6? > If no one uses CentOS6 maybe we

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

How about we ask the community if we need to support centOS6? If no one uses CentOS6 maybe we make a fuzz for nothing. I am not aware that another distro is using that old versions. The important thing is how much users we say we need to extend the support to CentOS 6? I would also include the

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I am setup to be able to provide both CentOS5 Linux builds, for "old" > systems (and gstreamer 0.10), and Ubuntu-or-CentOS6 Linux builds for newer > ones (and gstreamer 1.x), so if that is the decision, that's fine w/ me. It > increases,

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

I am setup to be able to provide both CentOS5 Linux builds, for "old" systems (and gstreamer 0.10), and Ubuntu-or-CentOS6 Linux builds for newer ones (and gstreamer 1.x), so if that is the decision, that's fine w/ me. It increases, substantially, the total volume of releases we need to do,

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

On 05/30/2018 03:08 PM, Torokhov Sergey wrote: > > 28.05.2018, 20:19, "Kay Schenk" : > >> This is ONLY for Linux. So, how is multimedia "integrated" in AOO for >> Mac and Windows? Can someone point us to the applicable code areas for this? >> >> I have a feeling gstreamer was integrated long ago

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

29.05.2018, 21:30, "Jim Jagielski" : > I think the hope is to continue using CentOS5 for our official AOO community > builds. If not, then this becomes much easier, but it is, IMO, a major policy > decision to do that. recall that gstreamer-1.x is incompatible w/ CentOS5. > > I have no idea

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

28.05.2018, 20:19, "Kay Schenk" : > This is ONLY for Linux. So, how is multimedia "integrated" in AOO for > Mac and Windows? Can someone point us to the applicable code areas for this? > > I have a feeling gstreamer was integrated long ago when no other > multi-media standard/app for Linux

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

I think the hope is to continue using CentOS5 for our official AOO community builds. If not, then this becomes much easier, but it is, IMO, a major policy decision to do that. recall that gstreamer-1.x is incompatible w/ CentOS5. I have no idea how to do #2 but #1 looks like simple brute force.

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

> On May 28, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: > > Imho the gstreamer libs are still the method of choice for doing multimedia. > > The current state is that trunk can utilize the gstreamer API 1.0.0 > > We have the issue not resolved the issue to provide gstreamer for different >

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Thanks Peter. I will investigate. ___ Sent from MzK's phone. On Mon, May 28, 2018, 10:54 Peter Kovacs wrote: > The implementation can be found at avmedia/source/ > > I think we use native API / libs for Windows and Mac. > > > Am 28. Mai 2018 19:18:34 MESZ schrieb Kay Schenk

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

As I explained in a previous mail, Windows uses DirectShow and Mac uses QuickTime or MacAVF. Linux's equivalent of DirectShow is gstreamer. It also builds pipelines of filters, has codecs, supports embedding into windows, etc. On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:19 PM Kay Schenk wrote: > On 05/28/2018

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

The implementation can be found at avmedia/source/ I think we use native API / libs for Windows and Mac. Am 28. Mai 2018 19:18:34 MESZ schrieb Kay Schenk : >On 05/28/2018 12:05 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: >> Imho the gstreamer libs are still the method of choice for doing >multimedia. > >This is

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

On 05/28/2018 12:05 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: > Imho the gstreamer libs are still the method of choice for doing multimedia. This is ONLY for Linux. So, how is multimedia "integrated" in AOO for Mac and Windows? Can someone point us to the applicable code areas for this? I have a feeling gstreamer

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

3. Build on a newer CentOS or other distro. 4. Link to 1.0.0 using run-time dynamic linking, using that patch I made, and only require the gstreamer-1.0.0 tarball at compile time to find the headers. Damjan On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 9:06 AM Peter kovacs wrote: > Imho the

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Imho the gstreamer libs are still the method of choice for doing multimedia. The current state is that trunk can utilize the gstreamer API 1.0.0 We have the issue not resolved the issue to provide gstreamer for different Distributions. (Main issue: centos6 is to old to support the new gstreamer

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

On 05/23/2018 05:35 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Subj line sez it all... where are we? There was a proposal to make it a > run-time dependency but afaict there hasn't been any effort yet it doing that. > > I know we have a handful of other things TODO re: 4.2.0 but this seems to be > an inflection

Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Hopefully I will not intrude, but... On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Subj line sez it all... where are we? There was a proposal to make it a > run-time dependency but afaict there hasn't been any effort yet it doing that. On May 19-20, 2018, I pulled

gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?

Subj line sez it all... where are we? There was a proposal to make it a run-time dependency but afaict there hasn't been any effort yet it doing that. I know we have a handful of other things TODO re: 4.2.0 but this seems to be an inflection point for the Linux builds and so I really think we

macOS (Re: Status on 4.2.0? )

The macOS builds are ready. I'll wait until my Linux-64bit builds are done, via Ubuntu 14.04, before I upload them. Then I'll start on the Linux 32 bit ones, also Ubuntu. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

Until we figure out what to do about the gstreamer stuff, I'll focus on the macOS builds. We will need to determine how we'll handle Linux builds and differentiate between builds for platforms with glib >= 2.32 (Ubuntu 14.04) and those older (CentOS 6). This is an issue because it'll cause changes

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

I uploaded new builds (r1826903) for Windows: https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Test/ If someone wants an additional language added, drop me a line. Regards,    Matthias Am 15.03.2018 um 12:29 schrieb Matthias Seidel: > Hi Jim, > > Am 14.03.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Jim

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

Hi Jim, Am 14.03.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > I've gone ahead and make the AOO 4.2 Release Wiki page > for us to start working on it. > > I propose to take HEAD of trunk and create a -dev developers > build for test and "review" by March 16th. I'll sign up for macOS > and Linux. I can

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

I've gone ahead and make the AOO 4.2 Release Wiki page for us to start working on it. I propose to take HEAD of trunk and create a -dev developers build for test and "review" by March 16th. I'll sign up for macOS and Linux.

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 15:18:58 -0500 Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 22:53:04 +0100 > > Marcus > wrote: > > > >> Am 06.03.2018 um

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

> On Mar 8, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 22:53:04 +0100 > Marcus > wrote: > >> Am 06.03.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> Is it time to start thinking of an 'official' beta release for

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

t; wrote: Hello all, What is the current status on 4.2.0? I have seen one bug that fires when opening a document. We got more? All the best Pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

Am 09.03.2018 um 00:16 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 08/03/2018 Marcus wrote: However, for me "Beta" sounds like from the 1990s. Maybe we can find another term and try to be a bit more modern with "Preview Release", "Early Access" or something else. I'm not much interested in how outdated the

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

On 08/03/2018 Marcus wrote: However, for me "Beta" sounds like from the 1990s. Maybe we can find another term and try to be a bit more modern with "Preview Release", "Early Access" or something else. I'm not much interested in how outdated the name "Beta" looks, but it looks wrong.

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

t remember that we had done a beta release. So, the > last one is much longer ago. I think let's define and do the process > like we need it. > > Marcus > > > > >> On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> &

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

efine and do the process like we need it. Marcus On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: Hello all, What is the current status on 4.2.0? I have seen one bug that fires when opening a docum

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

On 3/6/2018 12:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Is it time to start thinking of an 'official' beta release for 4.2.0? We > won't get much traction and feedback on the codebase until we > get more people using and testing it, which is one goal of a > beta in any case. > > Having never done a Beta for

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

it is similar to RM for the RCs, I'm game to help push this along. > On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello all, > > What is the current status on 4.2.0? > I have seen one bug that fires when opening a document. We got more? &

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

Hi Pedro, Am 03.03.2018 um 16:55 schrieb Pedro Lino: >> Technically seen: >> To unpack the installation files and to start the installation with MSI. >> >> Historically seen: >> I don't know! ;-) >> > > The nsis installer extracts and runs the MSVC runtime libraries installer >

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

I think it is better to renew the installer completely. I have found a open source framework that simplifies the creation of the installer and builds the msi file for us. It offers .net framework for writing a installer screens (MSI does not provide such a thing). The tutorials I have read

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

> Technically seen: > To unpack the installation files and to start the installation with MSI. > > Historically seen: > I don't know! ;-) > The nsis installer extracts and runs the MSVC runtime libraries installer before running the AOO installer. Since AOO is compiled with MSVC

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

?id=126703 Regards,    Matthias > > Am 3. März 2018 12:39:32 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel > <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Am 01.03.2018 um 07:38 schrieb Peter kovacs: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> What is the current status on 4.

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

Why do we need nsis again? Am 3. März 2018 12:39:32 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>: >Hi Peter, > >Am 01.03.2018 um 07:38 schrieb Peter kovacs: >> Hello all, >> >> What is the current status on 4.2.0? >> I have seen one bug that fir

Re: Status on 4.2.0?

Hi Peter, Am 01.03.2018 um 07:38 schrieb Peter kovacs: > Hello all, > > What is the current status on 4.2.0? > I have seen one bug that fires when opening a document. We got more? You probably think of: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315 I would like to have thi

Status on 4.2.0?

Hello all, What is the current status on 4.2.0? I have seen one bug that fires when opening a document. We got more? All the best Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e