Re: Presentation templates for ApacheCon NA 2013

[Jim Jagielski]

Any update on these templates... I really want to be able to xfer
my slides to the canonical template sooner rather than later ;)

On Feb 8, 2013, at 3:32 AM, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com wrote:

 Saransh,
   Thanks very much for your help!
   As I mentioned below, you can refer to the Apache OpenOffice template 
 website and ApacheCon EU 2012 template .
   We need to design 1 cover slide and 1 content slide. Last time we made the 
 visual design in 2000*1500 jpeg files firstly. If people like the design, 
 then we can take the picture as background and build the template (which I'm 
 good at and can help ^_^ ).
 
 - Shenfeng (Simon)
 
 

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs

[Jim Jagielski]

Thx for the discussion and the work. It is greatly appreciated.

With that said, I still don't see the need or rationale for the
##For Developers section. Removing the last 2 paragraphs
would go a long way in keeping the narrative closer to the
kind of discussion and info that the ASF is known for.

PS: Please be sure to cc me on any follow-ups/replies

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.

But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
would join, and many of those would be from others in the
entire OO eco-system.

Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.

The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
less.

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann <anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> 
>> 
>> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
>> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>> by actual end-user implementations.
>> 
> 
> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
> what we call "marketing" etc.
> 
> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
> 
> I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
> 
> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
> way for and of the OpenOffice community.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Kind regards
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

This whole discussion is a chance to "prove me wrong" (as someone
"out of touch") as well as to prove to the entire OO community
what those "positive things" are.

I am glad that the status-quo of today != the status-quo as of
(today - 3weeksAgo).

I am reminded of this scene from Pulp Fiction (apologies for
the language: I didn't write this. Blame "edgy" QT):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlrgjgOHrw


> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Roberto Galoppini <roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 2, 2016 3:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.
>> 
>> But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
>> would join, and many of those would be from others in the
>> entire OO eco-system.
>> 
>> Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
>> maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
>> unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.
> 
> Jim if you're paying attention, and I say if just because I know you have
> been out of touch recently, you can't have missed that a number of positive
> things HAPPENED here. So if you see people having confidence maybe it would
> be good to think twice and wonder if we might have reasons to think
> otherwise.
> 
>> The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
>> needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
>> less.
> 
> We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real ones) would be
> left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.
> 
> In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can keep changing
> in the right direction.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Roberto
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann <anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
>>>> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>>>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be
> consumed
>>>> by actual end-user implementations.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
>>> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
>>> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
>>> what we call "marketing" etc.
>>> 
>>> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
>>> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
>>> 
>>> I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
>>> 
>>> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
>>> way for and of the OpenOffice community.
>>> 
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] 
> 
>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
>> advantages
>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>> 
>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
>> discussion
>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>> 
>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>> 
>> "We will not hide problems"
> 
> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends. 
> 
> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by 
> third
> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the 
> intention to
> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
> 
> 

sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.

At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

BTW, can we drop private@ on this and simply continue the
discussion on dev@?

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

Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

The issue, currently, is that the Mac OS X build requires, last I
checked, an extremely old version of OSX, Xcode, et.al. No one
has such a beast laying around.

I have tried creating a VMware Fusion guest but it is difficult
finding all the bits and pieces.

There was some discussion on (re)purchasing a MacMini to serve
as our OSX build machine. I can host it here in my house or
we can plop it in our NOC. Hell, I may just purchase one myself.

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:20 PM, toki  wrote:
> 
> On 02/09/2016 14:59, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> 
>> What is the most important thing/things we could be working on?  
> 
> On your own hardware:
> 
> Repeat:
>   Build a Mac OS X Binary;
>   Fix the error messages you get;
>   Write notes about what you did;
>   Test the program functionality;
> Until it builds properly and all functions work as expected;
> 
> Then submit the patches and notes your you wrote to the SVN.
> 
>> How do we counter the FUD that is already being promulgated in
> response to the "retirement" discussion?
> 
> At this stage, the only thing that might be adequate, is a release
> before the end of the weekend, followed up by a release before New Years.
> 
> jonathon
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Yes, still VERY valid!

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you 
> helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>>> 
>>>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
>>>> advantages
>>>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>>>> 
>>>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
>>>> discussion
>>>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>>>> 
>>>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>>>> 
>>>> "We will not hide problems"
>>> 
>>> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends. 
>>> 
>>> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by 
>>> third
>>> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the 
>>> intention to
>>> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>> 
>> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>> 
>> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
>> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
>> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
>> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
>> 
>> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
>> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
>> -
>> 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
> 


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

Re: We believe in OpenOffice. We want to help.

[Jim Jagielski]

Super super news! Thx!!
> On Sep 3, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> hard times for OpenOffice, but no unsolvable problems if we stand together.
> 
> We, the team to the ProOO-Box (www.prooo-box.org), want the whole community 
> to assure that we will support a new release of AOO (4.1.3 or 4.2.0) with 
> particular intensity by our public relations in Germany.
> 
> Please let us know how we can provide additional direct support AOO currently.
> We are not a developers, but we might as help writing press releases to 
> create websites or translate, or similar things.
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings
> Detlef, Jan and Jörg
> 
> http://www.prooo-box.org
> 
> 
> -
> 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: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

Cool... We should get rid of that old page or put DEPRECATED in big letters.

So have people built w/ 10.11 and Xcode 7.2.1 ?

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> According to 
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX
>>  o OSX 10.4 or 10.5
>>  o Xcode 2.4.1 or 3
>>  o OSX 10.4 SDK
> 
> Ahem... Have you noticed that the title says "OpenOffice 3.x or Apache 
> OpenOffice 4.0"?
> 
> You should not build 4.0. You should retry with the 4.1 instructions:
> 
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX
> 
> and you'll find information up to 10.9 and newer there.
> 
>> From what I can see the likely culprit is support for PowerPC, since,
>> iirc, 10.4 was the last to support PPC.
> 
> The guess is correct. It just misses that we stopped supporting PowerPC (and 
> moved to support more modern systems only) a few years ago. It no longer 
> applies now.
> 
>> The OSX 10.4 SDK is also an issue... Have you gotten it to work
>> w/ Xcode 7?
> 
> The link to the "reference environments" that I didn't have handy yesterday 
> is this one:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.1.2/
> There you'll find (look for the environments.txt and the config.log files) 
> that 4.1.2 was built with Mac OS X 10.9.5 and XCode 6.2. Not the latest, but 
> not really "legacy" either. I've never used XCode 7 (or any version of XCode, 
> for that matter).
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

Let me check.

FWIW, I have now a 10.7 guest running on my MacPro via VMware Fusion.
I am the legal licensee of that version as well.

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> It works on VMware VHosts too.
> 
> Jim, wearing your VP, Legal Affairs hat do you know anyone at Apple that 
> could help grant a special license from Apple?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 3, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Well, not sure if it is *allowed* or not, but VMware Fusion specifically
>> allows for it. And it works.
>> 
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That's unfortunate.  And Apple doesn't allow running OSX under a VM on
>>> another
>>> OS do they?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I looked at some of those services a few weeks ago. For the ones I
>>>> found, the relatively inexpensive options did not have the capability of
>>>> building software, let alone the capacity for build a substantial body
>>>> of software. The options with the capability and capacity would cost
>>>> more than a Mac Mini over a few months.
>>>> 
>>>> For example, for macincloud we would need the "Dedicated Server" plan
>>>> ($49+) with added "Optional Build Server Plan". Even their maximum
>>>> upgrade of 250 GB would not be enough for AOO building.
>>>> 
>>>> The conclusion I reached was that if I were going to do any Mac
>>>> development it would take less of my time and energy to buy one of the
>>>> more powerful Macs and manage it directly.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/2/2016 9:53 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sadly, I don't own a Mac.  I use one at work, but all of my personal
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> is PC based, running Linux.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder if it would work to use something like this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.macincloud.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anybody have any experience with something like that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Phil
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:20 PM, toki <toki.kant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 02/09/2016 14:59, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What is the most important thing/things we could be working on?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On your own hardware:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Repeat:
>>>>>> Build a Mac OS X Binary;
>>>>>> Fix the error messages you get;
>>>>>> Write notes about what you did;
>>>>>> Test the program functionality;
>>>>>> Until it builds properly and all functions work as expected;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Then submit the patches and notes your you wrote to the SVN.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How do we counter the FUD that is already being promulgated in
>>>>>> response to the "retirement" discussion?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At this stage, the only thing that might be adequate, is a release
>>>>>> before the end of the weekend, followed up by a release before New Years.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jonathon
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


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

Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

According to 
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX

 o OSX 10.4 or 10.5
 o Xcode 2.4.1 or 3
 o OSX 10.4 SDK

From what I can see the likely culprit is support for PowerPC, since,
iirc, 10.4 was the last to support PPC.

The OSX 10.4 SDK is also an issue... Have you gotten it to work
w/ Xcode 7? I have a copy of the SDK and use the attached script
to fold older SDKs in, but starting w/ Xcode7, it doesn't like it.

S if, in fact, someone was able to *build* AOO on a recent (10.10
or 10.11) version of OSX and Xcode7, documenting that stuff on the
above wiki page would be very, very useful.


> On Sep 2, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The issue, currently, is that the Mac OS X build requires, last I
>> checked, an extremely old version of OSX, Xcode, et.al. No one
>> has such a beast laying around.
> 
> When did you check? And what does "extremely old" mean?
> 
> OpenOffice 4.1.2 was built with a version of XCode released 6 months earlier.
> 
> I trust you've looked at our reference environments, right? If you need the 
> link again just look at archives from the last 24 hours, I've posted it into 
> another conversation.
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: The AOO build system

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> 3. Regarding Mac in particular, I'll repeat this question from an earlier
> thread:  Does the ASF have Mac hardware for doing Mac builds, or are we
> dependent solely on developer machines for that?
> 

Is there anyone following up w/ Infra about this??
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

Please be aware that the board does not "stick its nose" into the
daily operations of a project. The current status of AOO came to
the boards attention via the required PMC reports as well as
other communications. It was only because of that that the board
got involved.


> On Sep 2, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
> Then you should give the project every encouragement to get the build process 
> properly prepared.
> 
> Our outgoing PMC chair should consider the same.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2016-09-02 09:43 (-0700), Pedro Giffuni  wrote: 
>>> 
>>> At this time I am unsure what the Board wants from the project.
>> 
>> My primary concern as a Board member is that the project respond promptly and
>> effectively to security reports.
>> 
>> Marvin Humphrey
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


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

Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

Well, not sure if it is *allowed* or not, but VMware Fusion specifically
allows for it. And it works.

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> That's unfortunate.  And Apple doesn't allow running OSX under a VM on
> another
> OS do they?
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> 
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
>> I looked at some of those services a few weeks ago. For the ones I
>> found, the relatively inexpensive options did not have the capability of
>> building software, let alone the capacity for build a substantial body
>> of software. The options with the capability and capacity would cost
>> more than a Mac Mini over a few months.
>> 
>> For example, for macincloud we would need the "Dedicated Server" plan
>> ($49+) with added "Optional Build Server Plan". Even their maximum
>> upgrade of 250 GB would not be enough for AOO building.
>> 
>> The conclusion I reached was that if I were going to do any Mac
>> development it would take less of my time and energy to buy one of the
>> more powerful Macs and manage it directly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/2/2016 9:53 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>> 
>>> Sadly, I don't own a Mac.  I use one at work, but all of my personal
>>> hardware
>>> is PC based, running Linux.
>>> 
>>> I wonder if it would work to use something like this:
>>> 
>>> http://www.macincloud.com/
>>> 
>>> Anybody have any experience with something like that?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:20 PM, toki  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 02/09/2016 14:59, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
 
 What is the most important thing/things we could be working on?
> 
 
 On your own hardware:
 
 Repeat:
   Build a Mac OS X Binary;
   Fix the error messages you get;
   Write notes about what you did;
   Test the program functionality;
 Until it builds properly and all functions work as expected;
 
 Then submit the patches and notes your you wrote to the SVN.
 
 How do we counter the FUD that is already being promulgated in
> 
 response to the "retirement" discussion?
 
 At this stage, the only thing that might be adequate, is a release
 before the end of the weekend, followed up by a release before New Years.
 
 jonathon
 
 -
 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
>> 
>> 


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

Re: Resigning from Apache OpenOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

Thus makes me very, very sad. I hope that my comments are not
a factor here. As anyone who had been following the hacker-news
and LWN thread know, I am a supporter of AOO; I have been one
since the start despite the slings and arrows directed towards
me in being such.

There was no intent to malign the people doing fantastic work
on AOO, nor their enthusiasm, etc... The thread started was
simply a request for discussion about what a retirement would
look like; I relayed my thoughts as such. No more, no less.

Personally, I'd like you to reconsider.

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> 
> I'm resigning from Apache OpenOffice. I've been an unpaid volunteer with 
> OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice since April, 2001.  At this point, I'm 
> thinking it's time to move on. 
> 
> A big THANK YOU to all the developers that made OpenOffice the outstanding 
> open source product it is today.  THANK YOU to all the community members who 
> contributed tirelessly to the  ancillary  functions of both these projects. 
> And finally, special thanks to the infrastructure team at the Apache Software 
> Foundation for the remarkable job they did for Apache OpenOffice and continue 
> to do.
> 
> Best wishes to all of you, and may the road ahead for OpenOffice be smooth.
> 
> I'm assuming that my karma to the following areas will be removed later 
> today: committer rights to the source svn repository; rights to the PMC and 
> security lists and repositories.
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kay Schenk
> Apache OpenOffice 
> 
> "Things work out best for those who make 
>  the best of the way things work out." 
>-- John Wooden


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

Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

I had an issue w/ epm and PackageMaker, which is hardcoded in
configure to live in /Developer/ Also some other nits...

Taking notes and will send patches in.
> On Sep 3, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <arie...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 03:17:01PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Cool... We should get rid of that old page or put DEPRECATED in big letters.
>> 
>> So have people built w/ 10.11 and Xcode 7.2.1 ?
> 
> I've just built branch AOO410 with the latest and greatest, you need to
> apply http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1714089
> because 10.11 isn't detected, but see
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127099
> 
> @Pedro: is your commit linked to a bug report?
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> -- 
> Ariel Constenla-Haile


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

++1

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Jan Høydahl <jan@cominvent.com> wrote:
> 
> A public statement may slow the flood of FUD, protecting our end users, while 
> a new release in November will
> give a clear signal that the project did not choose retirement, ss will all 
> subsequent releases.
> 
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 
>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 22.25 skrev Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de>:
>> 
>> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the 
>> further development of the project, *even* in difficult times. 
>> 
>> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during 
>> ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
>> 
>> 
>> Jörg
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan@cominvent.com] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement 
>>> Involve? (long)
>>> 
>>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a 
>>> timely move now?
>>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to 
>>> various editors.
>>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for 
>>> copy/paste into news articles.
>>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the 
>>> project, the current push for
>>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on 
>>> healthy communities,
>>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that 
>>> an Apache project 
>>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>>> 
>>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>> 
>>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>>>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>>>> answer.
>>>> 
>>>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads 
>>> in various
>>>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>>>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to 
>>> have done.
>>>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>>>> person...
>>>> 
>>>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) 
>>> directed towards
>>>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply 
>>> redirected
>>>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>>>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, 
>>> was maintained
>>>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>>>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very 
>>> little rational
>>>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at 
>>> least, developers
>>>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am 
>>> ignoring, for the
>>>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue 
>>> w/ permissive
>>>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>>>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>>>> 
>>>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>>>> 
>>>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>>>> 
>>>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such 
>>> over-zealousness shouldn't
>>>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against 
>>> (this explanation
>>>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>>>> 
>>>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>>>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>>>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>>>> 
>>>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schri

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

It appears to me that what "we" should do is to create a blog
entry on blogs.a.o which provides more depth and detail in
this whole kerfluffle. It could contain WHY the original [DISCUSS]
thread was sent, that it was, in fact, a [DISCUSS] and basically
to initiate some *thought* and not any sort of admission that
AOO is dead or dieing (my follow-up may have not helped there,
but it was the basis for why the board wanted answers), clear
up some history and FUD which has been spread and summarize that
this awareness has resulted in lots and lots of people coming to
AOO and offering their help and talents.

Personally, I'd also like to see us "apologize" for allowing
Rob Weir to go off a little "extreme" in numerous cases. Again,
I doubt that anyone on the TDF/LO side would do the same, and admit
their "overzealousness" at times (to the detriment of cooperation),
but just because others don't do what they should is no reason for
us to not to. If "apologize" is too strong, at least honestly
acknowledge it.

I understand that the previous paragraph may be controversial so
take it or leave it.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
answer.

What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
"damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
person...

Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards
AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected
venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained
by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational
cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers
on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the
present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive
licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
nothing really to deserve the hate...

... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.

What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.

Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't
be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation
was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.

No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.

After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus  wrote:
> 
> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>> +1
>> 
>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
> 
> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago 
> - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
 were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>> 
>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>>> heck are we doing here?
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Dennis, thanks for opening up this conversation.

As noted over the last few months, it has become obvious to the
board that AOO has not been a healthy project for some time.
Again, there are many, many reasons for this, and it doesn't
help to go into them here and now. The simple fact is that we are at
this point now, so what should be done?

First of all, let's address the elephant in the room: Some people
(mostly naysayers and people who love stirring up sh*t) will say that
"Apache had this coming" or that we were "stupid or arrogant" in
taking on this challenge. Doing so simply shows their own ignorance,
but it still stings I'm sure. Even if AOO had not done 1 single release,
the donation of the codebase *and the relicensing of said codebase to
the ALv2* has been a *significant* plus to the open office ecosystem.
This has allowed the other players in the game to have true IP
provenance, as well as the ability to relicense things, as LO did
almost immediately.

This is something MAJOR that many people will forget and ignore, but it
is something we should be proud of. As things proceed, and the haters
start (continue) hating, these are things we should remind ourselves
of.

Secondly, as alluded to above, we should prepare ourselves for the FUD,
the "AOO is dead" victory chants, the numerous anti-AOO and anti-Apache
spewings, etc... There are some who will use this as a self-serving
soapboxing opportunity, and warp the facts into some Bizarro alternate
universe history. We should be there to set the facts straight but
also resign ourselves to the fact that their voices will likely be louder
than ours.

Now, with that out of the way, here are my thoughts on retirement. I
have previously shared these but am doing so again.

What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
by actual end-user implementations.

This is similar to the initial thoughts behind our acceptance of AOO in
the 1st place: that AOO would form the basis/foundation/core-implementations
and others would build upon those to create more specialized and enhanced
OpenOffice alternatives; and since it was a core, a common shared core,
the expectation was that these alternatives would work together, in true
FOSS fashion, and AOO would see code and patches from these alternatives
in improving this core. As we all know, this did not happen, and instead
of sharing, these alternatives never contributed back.

So with all that being said, you may be asking, "Jim, if they didn't
contribute then why would the contribute now?". Let me answer that.

First of all, I think they saw us as competitors, rather than co-
operators. Some of this was due to bad-blood, and some of it was due
to stupid posturing on both sides. But the main reason why, imo, was
because we were also end-user. End users needed to make a *choice* between
AOO and SomethingElse. By no longer being an end-user application,
that goes away.

Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename the project
to something more accurate to what our new function would be and we use
the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us considering
going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that people considering
"OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically or via some
click/OK interface).

With these 2 changes, as obvious olive branches, I think we will
see all players in the OO development eco-system be willing contributors
to the new project. And this will give the new project a new lease
on life.

Cheers!


> On Sep 1, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
> 
>  A. PERSPECTIVE
>  B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
> 
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> 
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited 
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner.  It is also my 
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the 
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen 
> volunteers holding the project together.  It doesn't matter what the reasons 
> for that might be.
> 
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> , 
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to 
> strive. 
> 
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
> 
> QU20: The 

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Fine then. I'll drop it. It did deserve to be brought up though.

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
> 
> There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective 
> science-fiction work under development in this thread.
> 
> Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on his own 
> blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though his bad temper 
> is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding contributor and a decent 
> community member. This should not be forgotten so easily.
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: Releasing OpenOffice 4.1.3 (reopening the AOO410 branch)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Recent events make it clear we will have to release OpenOffice 4.1.3 sooner 
> or later, with some duplication of work with respect to 4.1.2-patch1 but with 
> more clarity for those who couldn't see that we made a release last month.
> 
> I'll thus consider the AOO410 branch to be open again for the needed 
> structural fixes, like version numbering and similar. And I can take care of 
> fixing version numbers as I already did for 4.1.2.
> 

We should likely make some sort of public notice that work on 4.1.3
in effort for a release is in the works, to sooth and reassure our
user community.


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

Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

[Jim Jagielski]

We still need PackageMaker, from what I can tell, which is
really, really deprecated. Has anyone tried porting that
function to Packages or OSX's own pkgbuild?

But yes, I do have PackageMaker installed and worked around
the hardcoded path in configure... Why it does a strings on epm
and looks for a hardcoded path is beyond me. :)

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <arie...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 05:20:08PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I had an issue w/ epm and PackageMaker, which is hardcoded in
>> configure to live in /Developer/ Also some other nits...
> 
> For epm you have two options:
> 
> - use --with-epm-url pointing to a tarball
> 
> - build you own epm based on that very same version and
>  with AOO patches applied, then use --with-epm
> 
> 
> These are my configure options:
> 
> ./configure \
> --with-build-version="$(date +"%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S (%a, %d %b %Y)")" \
> --enable-verbose \
> --enable-crashdump=yes  \
> --enable-wiki-publisher  \
> --with-dmake-url=http://sourceforge.net/projects/oooextras.mirror/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
>  \
> --with-epm-url=http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \
> --enable-category-b \
> --enable-bundled-dictionaries \
> --with-package-format="installed dmg" \
> --with-jdk-home=/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.7.0_80.jdk/Contents/Home
>  \
> --with-ant-home=$HOME/aoo/build/apache-ant-1.9.7 \
> --with-perl-home=/usr/local/ActivePerl-5.24 \
> --disable-systray \
> --without-junit
> 
> My OS X El Capitan is a clean environment, no marcports nor homebrew,
> thus no headers in /usr/local nor /opt nor elsewhere (this is needed in
> order to reproduce the missing OpenSSL system headers bug). I don't even
> update nor install Perl modules, I just installed Perl from ActivePerl,
> that comes with everything out of the box.
> 
> 
> Regards
> -- 
> Ariel Constenla-Haile


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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Simos Xenitellis  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> LibreOffice has a list of big ideas, called "crazy ideas", at
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas
> These require big effort and it would be great if an office suite
> would implement them.
> Notable examples are
> 1. multi process instances
> 2. split MSOffice support in library
> 
> Picking one of those and implementing it, would allow to differentiate.
> 

Why not ask our user community?


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

dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

Seeing that there is a dependency, still, on dmake, I've gone
ahead and created

https://github.com/jimjag/dmake

based on what I've been using... Suggestions and patches
welcome. Hoping we can use this to replace the apche-extras
links.

It's based on (https://github.com/mohawk2/dmake)

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

Re: Last call for 4.1.3 patches

[Jim Jagielski]

Didn't see this addressed so opened a new blocker:

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127113

> On Sep 13, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> Please make sure all patches for 4.1.3 are checked in to the AOO413 branch.
> 
> -
> 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: Last call for 4.1.3 patches

[Jim Jagielski]

4.1.3 won't build on 10.11 w/o this since the Xcode provided just
has the 10.11 SDX and configure doesn't see it and so the configure
process dies. You have to hand edit configure to push thru.

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Should this go in 4.1.3 or in 4.1.4?
> 
> 4.1.3 will not be able to move on to building and testing unless we cut off 
> additions at some point. I think that point has already passed, but I'm open 
> to arguments.
> 
> On 9/14/2016 9:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Didn't see this addressed so opened a new blocker:
>> 
>>  https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127113
>> 
>>> On Sep 13, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please make sure all patches for 4.1.3 are checked in to the AOO413 branch.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> -
> 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: Last call for 4.1.3 patches

[Jim Jagielski]

All other OSX 10.11 "blockers" can be worked around by
adding some depedencies (like openssl...) but this one
stops configure in its tracks.

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 4.1.3 won't build on 10.11 w/o this since the Xcode provided just
> has the 10.11 SDX and configure doesn't see it and so the configure
> process dies. You have to hand edit configure to push thru.
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Should this go in 4.1.3 or in 4.1.4?
>> 
>> 4.1.3 will not be able to move on to building and testing unless we cut off 
>> additions at some point. I think that point has already passed, but I'm open 
>> to arguments.
>> 
>> On 9/14/2016 9:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Didn't see this addressed so opened a new blocker:
>>> 
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127113
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 13, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Please make sure all patches for 4.1.3 are checked in to the AOO413 branch.
>>>> 
>>>> -
>>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


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

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

Tarballs are at:

https://github.com/jimjag/dmake/releases

My goal was to try to combine all the flavors of dmake into one
"canonical" version we can use.

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 3:12 PM, John D'Orazio 
> <john.dora...@cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:
> 
> I myself just ran into the problem of the missing apache-extras link, I've
> used a sourceforge link for my build:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/oooextras.mirror/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2.
> Most of the links indicated in your github repo's README are dead links...
> I believe a downloadable tarball is useful for the building process, the
> sourceforge tarball seems to be working for me so far (it's my first build,
> and it's still building, but it's gotten past the initial dmake
> installation stage at least).
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Seeing that there is a dependency, still, on dmake, I've gone
>> ahead and created
>> 
>>https://github.com/jimjag/dmake
>> 
>> based on what I've been using... Suggestions and patches
>> welcome. Hoping we can use this to replace the apche-extras
>> links.
>> 
>> It's based on (https://github.com/mohawk2/dmake)
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John R. D'Orazio


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

[CWiki] Account Whitelisting - Jim Jagielski (jimjag)

[Jim Jagielski]

subj sez it all

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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Jim Jagielski]

One of the great things about FOSS is the tight connection
between users and developers. After all, most developers are
users that have an itch to scratch.

If there are things that the user community wants, then
chances are good that developers will be jazzed about working
on them, or, at least, the pool of potential developers
might be increased.

But open source, and open source projects, should not be
run in a normal, corporate s/w development mode, where some
"entity" decides what features are needed, etc... We should
be in touch with what our users, and our potential users, want.

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Jorg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
> 
>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> 
>>> LibreOffice has a list of big ideas, called "crazy ideas", at
>>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas
>>> These require big effort and it would be great if an office suite
>>> would implement them.
>>> Notable examples are
>>> 1. multi process instances
>>> 2. split MSOffice support in library
>>> 
>>> Picking one of those and implementing it, would allow to 
>> differentiate.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why not ask our user community?
> 
> Yes, that would be a theoretically good way, but I fear that's in practice a 
> very
> complicated subject.
> 
> Let me formulate in short: open source communities work mostly meritocratic, 
> not
> democratic
> 
> 
> Jorg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Another LWN article

[Jim Jagielski]

All done!! Thx!!

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

Re: Another LWN article

[Jim Jagielski]

Note that the LWN article is protected under a subscriber
paywall.

I'd like to followup but I'm not going to pay to repeat
on that thread what I've said numerous times in numerous
locations :)

> On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/699755/533f89639e8b53f0/
> 
> and the associated HN discussion, although I'm the only
> commenter there as I type this:
> 
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12456071
> 
> 
> Phil
> ~~~
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM


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

Re: Another LWN article

[Jim Jagielski]

Even ignoring trolls is tiring work :)

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

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
> 

It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
some minor things)... The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.

epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
major boon for the Mac.

Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
patches into his distro?? 
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Note that we could also update the AOO patch to make epm get rid of the
> PackageMaker, the patch already fixes the path:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/epm/epm-3.7.patch?revision=1413471=markup#l381
> We could change that system call.

The issue is that PackageMaker is old, old. It is no longer
even obtainable unless you are lucky enough to have an
old copy of the Xcode dev tools. So for people who wish to
build AOO under OSX, the dependency on PackageMaker is a
NoGo.

When Apple deprecated PackageMaker, they replaced it with
a command-line suite (pkg*). Unfortunately, all versions of
epm older than 4.3 have no concept of it and instead rely
on PackageMaker.

So it would be nice to be able to standardize on 4.3 for ALL
platforms, but that means applying the 3.7-patch to 4.3... that
is what I'm working on now at https://github.com/jimjag/epm/tree/aoo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

Here's what I have so far:

https://github.com/jimjag/epm/tree/aoo
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
>>> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
>>> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
>>> 
>> 
>> It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
>> some minor things)... The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
>> hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.
>> 
>> epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
>> major boon for the Mac.
>> 
>> Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
>> patches into his distro?? 
> 
> In the meantime, I'll look at patching 4.3 w/ the 3.7 patch to
> create a cleanly applying one.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
>> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
>> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
>> 
> 
> It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
> some minor things)... The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
> hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.
> 
> epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
> major boon for the Mac.
> 
> Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
> patches into his distro?? 

In the meantime, I'll look at patching 4.3 w/ the 3.7 patch to
create a cleanly applying one.


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

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Tarballs are at:
>>  https://github.com/jimjag/dmake/releases
>> My goal was to try to combine all the flavors of dmake into one
>> "canonical" version we can use.
> 
> Is there a reason for that?
> 

The only reason I saw was that it was a dependency that we
haven't tracked at all (see the req to fix configure.am/in
with the correct URL) and was/is easy to lose. There seemed
to have been some improvements since 4.12 that also looked
like they might have been useful.

All in all, have a tarball w/ no real source version
control, and a tarball whose location has changed and
been lost, up to now, seems like an easy thing to
resolve. Hence the repo.

> 
> Our build is designed to succeed based only on resources under control of the 
> project, namely: the SVN repository; the OOoExtras site; the Extensions site. 
> Depending on yet another online resource (a personal account on GitHub) seems 
> an additional issue.
> 

epm is required and not under our control. In fact, epm 4.3 is out
and work much better for AOO since it removes the need for the
long-since deprecated PackageMaker app and instead uses the
official pkgbuild stuff. Part of my configure.in changes (to
be submitted to trunk) notices that.

Or is this the typical warm and inviting behavior that all
"new" AOO contributors are subjected to?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> epm is required and not under our control. In fact, epm 4.3 is out
> and work much better for AOO since it removes the need for the
> long-since deprecated PackageMaker app and instead uses the
> official pkgbuild stuff. Part of my configure.in changes (to
> be submitted to trunk) notices that.
> 

FWIW, this is for MacOS


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

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jim Jagielski]

Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in
> early 2017.  Feels like a good rhythm to aim for.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus"  wrote:
> 
>> Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>> 
>>> I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
>>> 4.2.0 instead? I mean ...
>>> 
>>> - I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
>>> 4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
>>> - the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
>>> more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
>>> disappointing to not see the code out sooner.
>>> 
>>> I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
>>> or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
>>> included in future releases and we could benefit from the
>>> momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
>>> not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
>>> vacations during December as well.
>>> 
>> 
>> I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
>> to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
>> in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
>> more attention.
>> 
>> Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a
>> 4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for
>> deeper tests before release this.
>> 
>> So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the
>> beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook.
>> And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that
>> can be published, too. *)
>> 
>> However, my 2ct.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *) Just a note for everyone:
>> Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it
>> is automatically published.
>> 
>> It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on
>> this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm
>> not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something
>> is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)
>> 
>> 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

patched epm and AOO 4.2.x

[Jim Jagielski]

It looks like, from all I can tell, that except for some formatting
issues (namely, using '_' in filenames instead of '-' in some
cases), all of reasons and issues for using a patched epm
are resolved in epm 4.3... With 4.3, packages are relocatable
and RPM's no longer require --nodep.

Considering that the package/installer in solenv knows about
both patched and unpatched epms, I'd like us to consider baselining
epm 4.3 (unpatched) for 4.2.x and later... It would be nice to
be able to leverage untainted epm.

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <arie...@apache.org> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Note that we could also update the AOO patch to make epm get rid of the
>> PackageMaker, the patch already fixes the path:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/epm/epm-3.7.patch?revision=1413471=markup#l381
>> We could change that system call.
> 
> The issue is that PackageMaker is old, old. It is no longer
> even obtainable unless you are lucky enough to have an
> old copy of the Xcode dev tools. So for people who wish to
> build AOO under OSX, the dependency on PackageMaker is a
> NoGo.
> 
> When Apple deprecated PackageMaker, they replaced it with
> a command-line suite (pkg*). Unfortunately, all versions of
> epm older than 4.3 have no concept of it and instead rely
> on PackageMaker.
> 
> So it would be nice to be able to standardize on 4.3 for ALL
> platforms, but that means applying the 3.7-patch to 4.3... that
> is what I'm working on now at https://github.com/jimjag/epm/tree/aoo
> -
> 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: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?
> 
> Two years of miscellaneous changes and fixes, a radically improved build 
> system, unit tests at build time, updates of a lot of libraries, support for 
> new languages, new translations, new dictionaries... if this is not 4.2.0 it 
> should be named 5.0.
> 

That was kind of my thoughts... or maybe call it 4.5.0

The idea is to represent the "re-charged" AOO project with
a meaningful change in version.


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

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

[Jim Jagielski]

I cannot recreate the bug on my setup, which is 10.11 with Java 7 and 8
installed.

> On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:40 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> On 10/5/2016 2:32 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> On 2016-10-05, 12:48 AM Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> 
>>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
 Is this approved or not approved as a release blocker???
 I thought there was a fix for this.
 It is essential that this is fixed for Mac users.
>>> 
>>> As I understand it, the reason is lack of testing and, as explained by
>>> Ariel, system changes in the latest 2 versions of MacOS X that require
>>> build changes for this to work. But testing is easy: just download a
>>> 4.1.3-RC1 build from
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/ and give
>>> your feedback in the issue. If this doesn't make it for 4.1.3, it is a
>>> clear candidate for 4.1.4 (which is surely not going to take one year!).
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Andrea.
>> 
>> Base works in 4.1.3-RC1. I worked in the build that Ariel posted on the
>> issue for this bug. Apparently it doesn't require build changes to work,
>> or have those changes been made. Or was Ariel referring to the bug that
>> means the legacy Java 6 is required for Java to work on AOO???
> 
> I tried to find out what was going on in the thread
> 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e96354facb4683435be70f428f8381636b2becaa89b34ab7b5f3ef0@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
> 
> Subject: Status of "Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX"
> 
> I could not get a clear consensus that it has been fixed in 4.1.3, so I could 
> not include it in the release notes as a fixed bug. There is still time to 
> change that.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: 4.1.3 building

[Jim Jagielski]

> 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

Re: 4.1.3 building

[Jim Jagielski]

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

[Jim Jagielski]

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

[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: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3 RC1

[Jim Jagielski]

+1 (binding)
  source testing:
o Checked signature and hashes
o Checked source formats contain identical files.
o Built and tested en-US on OSX 10.11

  binary testing:
o Tested en-US app on OSX 10.11, 10.10

> On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:07 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> The Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3 source and binaries, 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/, contain several 
> bug fixes. See the draft release notes at 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes
> 
> Please vote on releasing it as 4.1.3 by replying to this thread
> 
> [ ] +1 Approve, with description of any testing you have done
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation.
> 
> In addition, if you are a PMC member please indicate "Binding" if you intend 
> to cast a binding vote, which requires a build and test from source.
> 
> Please tag any discussion, rather than votes, with [DISCUSS][VOTE].
> 
> The vote will conclude no sooner than 10 p.m UTC on Saturday, October 8th, 
> 2016.
> 
> -
> 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: [Proposal] Publish Apache Open Office on the apple store.

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 9, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I would like to see the old communication. Was the dev mailinglist
>> involved?
> 
> Oh, sure! You can search for digital signatures on the dev list 
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@openoffice.apache.org (I recall I sent 
> a message on 1st January 2015, and nothing significant happened after it 
> except discussions).
> 
>> What kind of seriousness do you need?
>> Like I volunteering to drive this in a civilised provesional mannor
>> would be sufficient for you?
> 
> Absolutely. Actually less than that is enough. I mean, if Infra is going to 
> be involved then we mustn't repeat once again -and I am responsible for at 
> least one occurrence- the mistake of asking to prepare stuff and not using it.
> 
> Let's start from the basics. I'll now reopen a conversation here asking if 
> the Symantec signing infrastructure applies to Gatekeeper or not. If it is 
> Windows-only, then the entire previous discussions are not relevant and we 
> (you) must find a way forward for Mac OS X. If, on the contrary, it applies, 
> then I'll give you explanations and liaise with Infra since you might not 
> have the needed level of access.
> 

+1. Let me know what I can do to help if need be.


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

Re: Signature verification for 4.1.3-RC1

[Jim Jagielski]

We should ensure that AOO people join the keysignings @ ApacheCon
> On Oct 8, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> This is not a blocker for the release (and moreover signature files are 
> explicitly allowed to be updated during the release vote if needed), but I 
> couldn't verify signatures in a straightforward way for source packages.
> 
> One of the signatures is mine; no problem with that, and that itself is 
> enough to prove integrity for release approval purposes.
> 
> Patricia's one, according to my GPG, is done with a key having a short ID of 
> 02703386; I couldn't find the public key in the usual places, so I couldn't 
> verify this one.
> 
> Again, this is not a blocker issue since one key is enough, but public keys 
> used for signing releases are expected to be found at:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/KEYS
> or (secondary resource) at
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/
> 
> The former contains my key and another key by Patricia (short ID A57935C5); 
> the latter contains the same key by Patricia - it doesn't contain mine since 
> I never bothered uploading it again to enforce the long IDs and I now see 
> that someone decided to remove the keys that only had a short ID, I'll fix it 
> later today.
> 
> Where can I find the matching public key by Patricia? It should be added in 
> SVN to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
> which (I believe) maps to the first URL I listed. There is surely a way to do 
> it without a full checkout, but I didn't check details.
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: How do all the binaries get built?

[Jim Jagielski]

If useful, I can replace my 64bit CentOS5 vm with a 32bit one.

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 16/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'm in the process of bringing up a new CentOS5 system as we speak
> 
> Good news! The recipe on our MWiki
> 
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#CentOS_5
> 
> is still incomplete (see the "Ready to setup release build machines?" 
> thread). I'll make sure it is updated during the weekend, so we have a 
> "standard recipe" to get the build dependencies that are not available on 
> CentOS 5 through standard channels.
> 
> A CentOS 5 32-bit buildbot would be more useful than a 64-bit one, so that we 
> can differentiate further (I already have the 64-bit one working, with a test 
> run of builds coming this weekend).
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Buildbot builds should include mor than en-US only

[Jim Jagielski]

Where is this documented? I can see the ./configure line in
the puppet files but we should also have this on a wiki someplace,
right?

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Marcus  wrote:
> 
> I remember that old times at Sun where we have done builds with more than 
> just en-US.
> 
> In order to cover problems that could be language-related we have built:
> 
> - en-US - as default
> - de - for the lazy German guys ;-) , can be left out now
> - pt - as these language has mostly the longest strings
> - one Asian language (ko, ja, zh-CN, zh-TW) to cover BIDI and font
>  problems
> 
> So, I suggest to expand the build.lst to this setup.
> 
> 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: How do all the binaries get built?

[Jim Jagielski]

I'll set one up in the next day.

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 19/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If useful, I can replace my 64bit CentOS5 vm with a 32bit one.
> 
> It would be useful (to have more coverage) to test
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#CentOS_5
> on a 32-bit VM, and adapting -it's trivial- the script at
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.1.3/
> to check that we have a good recipe to obtain Linux-32 binaries as well as 
> the Linux-64 binaries I've just uploaded to
> http://home.apache.org/~pescetti/openoffice-4.1.3-dev-r1761552
> 
> Thanks,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: How do all the binaries get built?

[Jim Jagielski]

Just a FYI that I now have 4 build VMs available that I will
use: OSX 10.11/Xcode 7.3.1, Ubuntu 14.04/64bit, CentOS5.11/64bit
and CentOS5.11/32bit.

So far, successful builds on OSX and the 64bit Ubuntu and CentOS5
VMs; haven't tried the 32bit one yet.

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

Re: How do all the binaries get built?

[Jim Jagielski]

I'm in the process of bringing up a new CentOS5 system as we speak.

> On Sep 11, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Volunteers to do the building?
> 
> I can help with linux-64 builds based on the information shared by Ariel 
> about the existing setup of his CentOS 5 VMs (of course, Ariel himself could 
> probably do it too; but it is good to split tasks so that the number of 
> people capable to build releases increases).
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: More Buildbot Information

[Jim Jagielski]

Most excellent. Thx!!

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Gavin McDonald  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> For those wanting to follow along or assist in the ASF hosted Buildbot 
> builds, I created a 
> new wiki page with some info about the builds and their hosts, how to update, 
> trigger builds etc.
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Buildbot+info
> 
> My work on migrating builds from old to new slaves is complete.
> 
> Project debs should check for failed builds. (Most are passing currently)
> 
> Gav…
> 
> 
> -
> 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: OpenOffice Access to the ASF's,Apple developer account

[Jim Jagielski]

Thx! Will add mine, since I'm now back from ATO2016

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 16/10/2016 17:46, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> Hello Infra.
>> 
>> 
>> This Thread was: "Code signing available for OpenOffice"
>> 
>> The Project OpenOffice would like to gain access to the ASF Developer
>> Account.
>> 
>> Please name the requirements the Project has to share with you.
> 
> https://reference.apache.org/pmc/appleappstore
> 
> Mark
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your support
>> 
>> 
>> All the Best
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> On 11.10.2016 14:03, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2016 22:34, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> We have separate a service for the Apple app store (and another for
>>>>>> the Google app store).
>>>>> Could you provide some info (or a pointer to info) regarding the
>>>>> App-store
>>>>> service, how it works, how to request access, etc..
>>>> Note that the current priority (in case this makes any difference) is to
>>>> get a valid signature that will be recognized by Gatekeeper. This is
>>>> probably a prerequisite for the App Store, but for the App Store we
>>>> would probably need further code changes that may come at a later stage.
>>> I don't think it makes a difference at this point. Access to the ASF's
>>> Apple developer account where we have a signing key for production
>>> applications is governed by the same process.
>>> 
>>> Note you have the option of using the existing ASF-wide ID to sign the
>>> app or creating a specific OpenOffice ID.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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
> 


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

recruitment@

[Jim Jagielski]

Methinks that the creation of recruitment@ was ill-advised...
Most new people are joining dev@ which makes recruitment@ look
like a dismal failure.

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

Stuff for 4.2.0

[Jim Jagielski]

One of the things I'd like to work on in 4.2.x is some cleanups
of the build system; I know there's already a page on it
(https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Improvements)
but my main goals are to (1) better handle OSX/MacOS and
(2) get rid of the shell environment pollution required
(at least as much as possible)... IMO, bootstrap should
setup the aliases and download the required files and there
should be no real reason to source *Env.Set.sh for any platform.

My thoughts were to update build.pl to (via BEGIN) slurp in
*Env.Set.sh and set %ENV, keeping the environment stuff in
there.

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

Re: Writing up the release process

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 12, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> On 10/12/2016 2:55 PM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 10/12/2016 11:49 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>> First, congratulations to everyone on releasing 4.1.3. If this were a
>>> conventional, co-located project I'd like to take you all out for a
>>> drink after work.
>>> 
>>> Now back to work :-)
>>> 
>>> At this moment, I hope everyone remembers exactly what they did, what
>>> karma and tools they used, to make the release happen. I would like to
>>> get that written up now, before steps get forgotten. That way, future
>>> release managers will be not be as helpless and confused as I was.
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking of creating "How to cook a release" as a child page under
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Releases, but given
>>> my inability to delete pages I would like to get opinions first.
>> 
>> JFDI ;-)
> 
> Done. 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
> 
> If anyone has material but cannot edit the page, just e-mail me your notes 
> and I'll add it.

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

Re: Code signing available for OpenOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> 
> On 9 October 2016 20:21:32 BST, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>> On 10/09/2016 Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 9 September 2016 23:29:49 BST, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
 Mark Thomas wrote:
> The infrastructure team has regained access to the OpenOffice code
> signing account. If you would like to use it to sign releases
>> please
> open an infra ticket and provide the Apache IDs
 May I ask if this is the same Symantec system ...
>>> It is.
>> 
>> Coming back to this discussion based on recent conversations on the 
>> OpenOffice dev list: does the Symantec code signing apply to Windows 
>> only, or is it relevant to Mac OS X (and Gatekeeper) too?
> 
> The Symantec service covers Windows binaries and Java JARs.
> 
> We have separate a service for the Apple app store (and another for the 
> Google app store).
> 

Thanks!

Could you provide some info (or a pointer to info) regarding the App-store
service, how it works, how to request access, etc..

tia!


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

Re: Request to join back the PMC

[Jim Jagielski]

++1!
> On Nov 26, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Raphael Bircher  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> In february 2015 I stepped back from the OpenOffice PMC. I stepped backi 
> because I have no more time to work on the project. Now I want to come back. 
> Let me know, if this is ok or not.
> 
> Regards Raphael
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Build Problems on Mac

[Jim Jagielski]

My focus has been on 4.1.x and 4.1.4 and not so much on
trunk lately... My assumption is that we will be releasing
a 4.1.4 in relatively "short" order.

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

Re: Build Problems on Mac

[Jim Jagielski]

I was able to successfully build and test 414-HEAD on OSX.

> On Jan 9, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> I thought so, but then we should at least have a release page for 4.1.4
> here:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Releases
> 
> At least we have a release manager, do we?
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
> 
> Am 09.01.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> My focus has been on 4.1.x and 4.1.4 and not so much on
>> trunk lately... My assumption is that we will be releasing
>> a 4.1.4 in relatively "short" order.
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Release 4.1.3 (4.1.4)

[Jim Jagielski]

My AOO 4.1.4 builds are ready for upload.

Configure settings were:

LANGS="ast bg ca ca-XR ca-XV cs da de el en-GB en-US es eu fi fr gd gl he hi hu 
it ja kid km ko lt nb nl pl pt pt-BR ru sk sl sr sv ta th tr vi zh-CN zh-TW"

./configure   \
--with-build-version="$(date +"%Y-%m-%d %H:%M") - `uname -sm`" \
--with-vendor="Apache OpenOffice Community Build" \
--enable-verbose \
--with-openldap \
--enable-category-b \
--enable-bundled-dictionaries \
--enable-wiki-publisher \
--with-junit="/usr/local/share/java/junit.jar" \
--with-jdk-home="$JAVA_HOME" \
--with-ant-home="$ANT_HOME" \
--with-epm=/usr/local/bin/epm \
--with-dmake-path=/usr/local/bin/dmake \
--without-stlport \
--with-package-format="installed dmg" \
--disable-systray \
--with-alloc=system \
--with-lang="${LANGS}"
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Release 4.1.3 (4.1.4)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> My AOO 4.1.4 builds are ready for upload.
> 

Just need a location to drop 'em off at :)


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

Re: Release 4.1.3 (4.1.4)

[Jim Jagielski]

I can have this complete and uploaded by this Monday if that's OK...
I am currently traveling and my AOO build system isn't accessible
from where I am.
> On Mar 22, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Raphael Bircher <rbircherapa...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Is there someone who can do Mac OS X?
>> 
> 
> As mentioned previously, I can. In fact, I have, but it was not
> a full-distclean rebuild, so will do again, just to make sure.
> 
> Once done, will upload. Suggested upload locations appreciated :)
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Please someone release 4.2.0 (or something else ...)

[Jim Jagielski]

I can see how 4.2.0-dev builds/works on OSX/macOS...

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 13.03.2017 um 23:56 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> On 12/03/2017 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> It seems like the imminent release of 4.1.4 got stuck and it is not
>>> clear if it will happen or when. Sadly, I don't really see anything
>>> interesting that 4.1.4 will add to 4.1.3.
>> 
>> Yes, it seems stuck indeed. I expected Ariel to target mid-February
>> for the release. I can still help building on Linux. 4.1.4 was (still
>> is) supposed to be a maintenance release just to push some bugfixes
>> for 4.1.3.
>> 
>>> Can you please reconsider releasing 4.2.0?
>> 
>> Nothing forbids to plan for 4.2.0 already now. We don't need to
>> release 4.1.4 before thinking about 4.2.0. If someone is available to
>> be a Release Manager for 4.2.0, things can go on in parallel. I
>> honestly think we will want to "release" (in the sense of making
>> available somehow) a beta of 4.2.0 too, so work in that direction can
>> start already now.
> 
> +1
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Please someone release 4.2.0 (or something else ...)

[Jim Jagielski]

To be clear, there doesn't seem to be a specific 4.2.0 branch...
So will be looking at trunk/HEAD

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> I can see how 4.2.0-dev builds/works on OSX/macOS...
> 
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Am 13.03.2017 um 23:56 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> On 12/03/2017 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>> It seems like the imminent release of 4.1.4 got stuck and it is not
>>>> clear if it will happen or when. Sadly, I don't really see anything
>>>> interesting that 4.1.4 will add to 4.1.3.
>>> 
>>> Yes, it seems stuck indeed. I expected Ariel to target mid-February
>>> for the release. I can still help building on Linux. 4.1.4 was (still
>>> is) supposed to be a maintenance release just to push some bugfixes
>>> for 4.1.3.
>>> 
>>>> Can you please reconsider releasing 4.2.0?
>>> 
>>> Nothing forbids to plan for 4.2.0 already now. We don't need to
>>> release 4.1.4 before thinking about 4.2.0. If someone is available to
>>> be a Release Manager for 4.2.0, things can go on in parallel. I
>>> honestly think we will want to "release" (in the sense of making
>>> available somehow) a beta of 4.2.0 too, so work in that direction can
>>> start already now.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Regards, Matthias
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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
> 


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

Re: Release 4.1.3 (4.1.4)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Raphael Bircher  wrote:
> 
> 
> Is there someone who can do Mac OS X?
> 

As mentioned previously, I can. In fact, I have, but it was not
a full-distclean rebuild, so will do again, just to make sure.

Once done, will upload. Suggested upload locations appreciated :)


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

Re: Buildbots page

[Jim Jagielski]

How can I upload my macOS build there??

> On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> If no one has objections I would make :
> 
> https://www.openoffice.org/download/devbuilds-test.html
> 
> live tomorrow and ask Infra to remove the script, page and artefacts of:
> 
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/index.html
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
> FYI: I changed the schedule of the snapshot builds (414 branch) to a
> weekly base.
> 
> 
> Am 28.03.2017 um 21:15 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 28.03.2017 um 01:55 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>>> It might have changed...
>> Indeed (from:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos//infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildmaster/master1/public_html/README_SCRIPTS.txt):
>> 
>> Index generation scripts
>> 
>> 
>> Note:
>> The shell scripts which generate the nightly and snapshot indexes have been 
>> moved to puppet.
>> 
>> See the directory:
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=infrastructure-puppet.git;a=tree;f=modules/buildbot_asf/files/projects;hb=HEAD
>> 
>> The cron jobs are defined in
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=infrastructure-puppet.git;a=blob_plain;f=modules/buildbot_asf/manifests/init.pp;hb=HEAD
>> 
>> 
>> Unfortunately only the script has been moved, but not the header, footer
>> and css. Therefore the page can not be updated properly.
>> The script itself generates links to AOO 4.1.2 snapshots and needs also
>> to be changed.
>> 
>> Instead of trying to fix the generated page I would suggest to link
>> directly to nightlys/snapshots from our devbuilds homepage:
>> https://www.openoffice.org/download/devbuilds.html
>> 
>> I created a test page as example:
>> https://www.openoffice.org/download/devbuilds-test.html
>> 
>> Opinions?
>> 
>> Kind regards, Matthias
>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>>> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Damjan,
 
 Thanks you for the link, but in:
 
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/
 aegis/buildmaster/master1/public_html/projects/openoffice/
 
 I can only find header, footer and CSS but no script?
 
 Regards, Matthias
 
 
 Am 27.03.2017 um 18:25 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> It's generated from:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/
 aegis/buildmaster/master1/public_html/projects/openoffice/create-ooo-
 snapshots-index.sh
> Regards
> Damjan
> 
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Matthias Seidel <
 matthias.sei...@hamburg.de
>> wrote:
>> Hello all!
>> 
>> Is there a way to maintain our Buildbots page?
>> 
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/index.html
>> 
>> Regards, Matthias
>> 
>> 
>> 
 
>> 
> 
> 


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

Re: I want to test AOO 4.1.4 again

[Jim Jagielski]

Latest test releases are available at:

http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/r1803698/

Assuming these test OK, svn will be updated, and official tag
and roll will happen.

Let me know if your lang build isn't avail.

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

Re: Prepare for 4.1.4 RC1...

[Jim Jagielski]

That's the rev. Thx!

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> If Revision 1803945 is what I can build for Windows I will start right away!
> 
> Might take some time, since I am in another timezone I just came home
> from work... ;-)
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
> 
> Am 03.08.2017 um 17:40 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Release candidate builds for 4.1.4 RC1 are being uploaded as we speak.
>> Once complete I will be calling for an official test and vote
>> on these artifacts.
>> 
>> NOTE: Current builds are Linux 32bit, Linux 64bit and macOS/OSX. We
>>  are still waiting on Windows builds...
>> 
>> -
>> 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

Prepare for 4.1.4 RC1...

[Jim Jagielski]

Release candidate builds for 4.1.4 RC1 are being uploaded as we speak.
Once complete I will be calling for an official test and vote
on these artifacts.

NOTE: Current builds are Linux 32bit, Linux 64bit and macOS/OSX. We
  are still waiting on Windows builds...

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

Expat 2.2.3 and Windows woes

[Jim Jagielski]

Hrm. Matthias is reporting that with expat 2.2.3, that Windows is
no longer building

Some ideas:

  o expat 2.2.3 requires c99
  o expat 2.2.3 requires loadlibrary.obj be built
and it doesn't look like our expat-2.2.3.patch
file, which creates makefile.mk does that.

Can anyone check and correct?

tia

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

Re: Prepare for 4.1.4 RC1...

[Jim Jagielski]

+1

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/03/2017 08:40 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Release candidate builds for 4.1.4 RC1 are being uploaded as we speak.
>> Once complete I will be calling for an official test and vote
>> on these artifacts.
>> NOTE: Current builds are Linux 32bit, Linux 64bit and macOS/OSX. We
>>   are still waiting on Windows builds...
> 
> Hi Jim, all --
> 
> This is what I come up with from BZ that's targeted for this release--
> 
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced=FIXED=FIXED_WITHOUT_CODE_milestone=4.1.4
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> MzK
> 
> "Only the truth will save you now."
>  -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress"
> 
> -
> 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: Expat 2.2.3 and Windows woes

[Jim Jagielski]

Is there any way to get a more verbose build output?

I am totally in-the-dark re: Windows build environs, so I'm
just spit balling on possible fixes ;)

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I applied your patch but now it stops at:
> 
> ---
> 
> 1 module(s):
>expat
> need(s) to be rebuilt
> 
> Reason(s):
> 
> ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
> /cygdrive/c/Source/aoo-414/main/expat
> 
> When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
> by running:
> 
>        build --from expat
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> Am 03.08.2017 um 22:34 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Hrm. Matthias is reporting that with expat 2.2.3, that Windows is
>> no longer building
>> 
>> Some ideas:
>> 
>>  o expat 2.2.3 requires c99
>>  o expat 2.2.3 requires loadlibrary.obj be built
>>and it doesn't look like our expat-2.2.3.patch
>>file, which creates makefile.mk does that.
>> 
>> Can anyone check and correct?
>> 
>> tia
>> 
>> -
>> 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: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

[Jim Jagielski]

This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO
required 10.9/Mavericks or greater. If not correct, could someone
let me know :)

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

Re: Opengrok

[Jim Jagielski]

It's a regression, so I would assume applying for a blocker would
be appropriate.

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:46:29 -0700
> Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
>> Opengrok, http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/, times out.
>> 
>> This makes it very unlikely I will be able to solve the RC2 OLE problem 
>> before I go out of town for a few days starting on Thursday. I can use 
>> find and grep instead, but it takes a lot longer.
> 
> Would it be appropriate to ask for a release blocker on the RC2 OLE problem?
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> 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: Opengrok

[Jim Jagielski]

How does one select AOO414 ? Or add it? :)

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> Opengrok, http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/, times out.
> 
> This makes it very unlikely I will be able to solve the RC2 OLE problem 
> before I go out of town for a few days starting on Thursday. I can use find 
> and grep instead, but it takes a lot longer.
> 
> -
> 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: Windows build woes

[Jim Jagielski]

I wonder if it's because I'm on Win7, Home Premium.

The list of installed s/w looks correct:

http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/aoobuilder-sw.png

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

AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

[Jim Jagielski]

Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
this:

error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'

but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:

/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++
 -arch x86_64 -std=c++11 -arch x86_64 -o out/der_getint_unittest.o -c -O2 -fPIC 
 -fno-common -pipe -DDARWIN -DHAVE_STRERROR -DHAVE_BSD_FLOCK  -Wall 
-Qunused-arguments -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-array-bounds 
-Wno-unevaluated-expression -Werror -Wsign-compare -DXP_UNIX -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG 
-DNSS_NO_INIT_SUPPORT -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY -DNO_NSPR_10_SUPPORT 
-DSSL_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_CIPHER_SUITE_NAMES 
-I../../external_tests/google_test/gtest/include -I../../external_tests/common 
-I../../../dist/out/include -I../../../dist/public/nss 
-I../../../dist/private/nss -I../../../dist/public/nspr 
-I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/public/libdbm 
-I../../../dist/public/gtest  -std=c++0x der_getint_unittest.cc
In file included from der_getint_unittest.cc:14:
../../external_tests/common/scoped_ptrs.h:36:1: error: no type named 
'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
SCOPED(CERTCertificate);



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

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

[Jim Jagielski]

I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead
of 10.7, which helps a lot.

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Boost has name collision with c++11.
> Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think.
> 
> Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
>> Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into
>> this:
>> 
>>   error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>> 
>> but the rub is that we for sure specify c++11 as we should:
>> 
>> /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang++
>> -arch x86_64 -std=c++11 -arch x86_64 -o out/der_getint_unittest.o -c
>> -O2 -fPIC  -fno-common -pipe -DDARWIN -DHAVE_STRERROR -DHAVE_BSD_FLOCK 
>> -Wall -Qunused-arguments -Wno-parentheses-equality -Wno-array-bounds
>> -Wno-unevaluated-expression -Werror -Wsign-compare -DXP_UNIX -UDEBUG
>> -DNDEBUG -DNSS_NO_INIT_SUPPORT -DUSE_UTIL_DIRECTLY -DNO_NSPR_10_SUPPORT
>> -DSSL_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_CIPHER_SUITE_NAMES
>> -I../../external_tests/google_test/gtest/include
>> -I../../external_tests/common -I../../../dist/out/include
>> -I../../../dist/public/nss -I../../../dist/private/nss
>> -I../../../dist/public/nspr -I../../../dist/public/nss
>> -I../../../dist/public/libdbm -I../../../dist/public/gtest  -std=c++0x
>> der_getint_unittest.cc
>> In file included from der_getint_unittest.cc:14:
>> ../../external_tests/common/scoped_ptrs.h:36:1: error: no type named
>> 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std'
>> SCOPED(CERTCertificate);
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


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

Re: Windows build woes

[Jim Jagielski]

I've tried reinstalling, putting stuff in different locations,
etc... I just cannot get aoo-414 building on my windows7 VM.
I am following the step-by-step guide to the letter.

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

Re: Windows build woes

[Jim Jagielski]

Considering that the build system for OO depends on pollution, oops,
I mean *population* of the environment, I just wonder if that may
be an issue.

Are you using the default bash* startup scripts? Any modifications?
That sort of thing?

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

Re: Windows build woes

[Jim Jagielski]

Can you provide what 'echo $PATH' shows before autoconf and
after the sourcing of winenv.set.sh?

tia!

> On Aug 12, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> Am 12.08.2017 um 15:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Considering that the build system for OO depends on pollution, oops,
>> I mean *population* of the environment, I just wonder if that may
>> be an issue.
>> 
>> Are you using the default bash* startup scripts? Any modifications?
>> That sort of thing?
> 
> I never used a script because I had too many different configure
> switches that I tested alternating.
> Maybe after 4.1.4 is released I will create one... ;-)
> 
> I just type (in SourceMain):
> 
> - autoconf
> - ./configure (with chosen switches)
> - ./bootstrap
> - source winenv.set.sh
> - cd instsetoo_native
> - build --all -P2 -- -P2
> 
> That builds all full installations (as defined in --with-lang) and the
> SDK by default. The SDK can be omitted with --disable-odk.
> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Windows build woes

[Jim Jagielski]

Yep... I've disabled using '--P2 -- --P2' as well, in
case it's something about parallel jobs, etc.

Weird as anything. The only thing I can think of is that
the links on the step-to-step guide are pointing to newer
versions of things, which is what is breaking my win7 builds.

I may try w/ a super-bare bones ./configure setup and see
how far I can go.

> On Aug 11, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Have you tried repeating "build --all" a few times?
> 
> I quite often have failures that go away with a few repeated builds. My 
> interpretation is that whatever is supposed to make sure all dependencies are 
> satisfied before building a module does not quite work right. Sooner or 
> later, everything that is needed does get built, and the build can proceed.
> 
> 
> On 8/11/2017 7:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I've tried reinstalling, putting stuff in different locations,
>> etc... I just cannot get aoo-414 building on my windows7 VM.
>> I am following the step-by-step guide to the letter.
>> -
>> 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
> 


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

[ANNOUNCE] Availability of AOO-4.1.4 RC2

[Jim Jagielski]

Available for immediate testing are the source tarball and
community builds of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC2.

As noted, these are Release Candidates and are not official,
GA releases, although based on testing, the could become so.
So PLEASE test these out!

You can find these gems at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.4-RC2/

Cheers!
--
Jim Jagielski
On behalf of the Apache OpenOffice Project

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

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk.
> 
> Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does 
> building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9 won't be 
> able to run the program?
> 

It does...

Now I haven't tried building w/ the 10.7 SDK simply because due to the build
flags (-Werror -Wdeprecated) when we bump into issues the build stops.
So we could work around those build issue, but that seem wonky to me.
It just seems wrong to have a new build system and then immediately
start crippling it to work with old systems. Alternatively, as the
VCL Quicktime issue shows, as we start updating some of the
actual code, these issues will start cropping up even more.

At some point we need to drop support for old systems... I had
assumed that 4.2.0 was our start in trying to free ourselves
from some of that kruft.


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

Re: DOC file not opening on 4.1.4

[Jim Jagielski]

Thanks! What platform build is this on?

On 2017-08-10 07:27, Rory O'Farrell  wrote: 
> Forum volunteer John_Ha has sent me a DOC file that will open with 4.1.3 (and 
> AbiWord) but gives a "Read-Error: This is not a WinWord 97 file" error on 
> 4.1.4 RC1.  A quick inspection suggests that the first 50 or so bytes of the 
> file are as they should be for a "good" DOC file. 
> 
> As this ML will strip attachments I won't attach it; I have his permission to 
> make it available to anyone interested.  If you would like to examine it, 
> please email me for a copy.  
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> 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: Mac OSX/macOS builds of AOO 4.1.4

[Jim Jagielski]

Full set of Linux64 RPMs are uploaded...

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

Re: Mac OSX/macOS builds of AOO 4.1.4

[Jim Jagielski]

:)

I can, but should I wait until we have some additional 4.1.4
backports folded in?

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> Great!
> 
> DEBs coming up next? ;-)
> 
> 
> Am 05.07.2017 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Full set of Linux64 RPMs are uploaded...
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Openoffice installation on Mac PC

[Jim Jagielski]

BTW, if we do have some signing capability suitable for the App
Store, could someone share that info for me for my AOO 4.1.4 builds.

tia.

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

Mac OSX/macOS builds of AOO 4.1.4

[Jim Jagielski]

A sampling has been uploaded to:

http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/

Cheers!.

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

Re: ASF logo in Splash Screen?

[Jim Jagielski]

FWIW: /me like

> On Apr 22, 2017, at 5:21 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 21.04.2017 um 19:09 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> 
>> 
>> On 04/17/2017 12:47 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 15.04.2017 um 18:56 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 For those who want to have a look, take:
 
 https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdjd6z6u2rgl1e2/intro.png?dl=0
>>> 
>>> this looks very good.
>> 
>> I like this first one also. But maybe the text could be just a bit
>> darker?
> 
> Maybe...
> I just erased the line with the non-existent URL and added the new (good
> looking) ASF logo.
> 
> At the moment it is just "patching" existing graphics. ;-)
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
>> 
>>> 
 https://www.dropbox.com/s/rpkjy5xbiusg51f/logo.png?dl=0
>>> 
>>> Where / For what is this graphic used? I don't remember that I've seen
>>> this somewhere in OpenOffice.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Marcus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 15.04.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 14.04.2017 um 14:08 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> At some point (4.1.0?) the ASF logo was removed from the splash
>> screen.
>> 
>> Older version (4.0.1):
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO401/main/default_images/introabout/intro.png
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to ask if we want to re-add the new ASF logo as the
>> graphic
>> must be updated anyway [1] ?
>> 
>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122376
> 
> it's also gone from the About dialog (menu Help - About). Maybe
> because the same graphic is used.
> 
> Yes, let's add the feather again to the graphic.
> 
> Will you make a graphical proposal?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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: Mac OSX/macOS builds of AOO 4.1.4

[Jim Jagielski]

I had issues in trying to get 4.2.0 to build, mostly due to the
new build system for it, from what I could tell. There were build
coordination issues w/ dependencies. I plan to update to HEAD for
4.2.0 and re-try on Monday.

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> Great!
> 
> Did you also build 4.2.0 recently?
> 
> I would like to know if the new setup icon is OK?
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
> 
> Am 27.04.2017 um 14:15 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> A sampling has been uploaded to:
>> 
>>http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>> 
>> Cheers!.
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Tips on uploading builds for 4.1.4-RC

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Aug 5, 2017, at 7:22 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> My prep scripts are now on devtools/release-scripts.
> 
> Thanks, one things less to redo next time!
> 
>>> ## 3. How is the source code obtained?
>>> $ cd instsetoo_native/util
>>> $ dmake aoo_srcrelease
>> % pwd
>> /Users/jim/src/asf/code/aoo-414/main/instsetoo_native/util
>> % dmake aoo_srcrelease
>> dmake:  makefile.mk:  line 26:  Error: -- Include file settings.mk, not found
> 
> I've just tested on my AOO414 build tree and it works: I get the zip, gz, bz2 
> and also the tar just in case.
> 
> Had you initialized your shell, same as when you build? (you run the 
> OS-dependent shell script as suggested by configure).
> 
> 

That was the rub. I had to source the env script. Thx.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Expat 2.2.3 and Windows woes

[Jim Jagielski]

r1804159

Just when you thought this work-around couldn't get uglier :)

Let's kick off another, please.
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> 
> wrote:
> 
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/buildlogs/win41x/main/expat/wntmsci12.pro/misc/logs/expat.txt
> 
> 
> Am 05.08.2017 um 00:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Grr...
>> 
>> 1 module(s): 
>>  expat
>> need(s) to be rebuilt
>> 
>> Reason(s):
>> 
>> ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making 
>> /cygdrive/e/slave14/aoo-w741x/build/main/expat
>> 
>> When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by 
>> running:
>> 
>>  build --from expat
>> 
>> 
>> I really wish I had more direct access to a Win build environ. Or
>> at least that the buildbot was more vocal. :/
>> -
>> 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