under LGPL v3+/MPL v2 dual license. Until further notice, all
future contributions to LibreOffice from Astra Linux are available under
LGPL v3+/MPL v2 dual license.
Sincerely yours, Yury OSIPOVDirector by special projects e-mail:
yosi...@astralinux.ru <mailto:yosi...@astralinux
Christian, thank you for the answer.
So, while those files were removed, there are still active dependencies on
them in the building system.
And the issue of the python runtime also may be a stopper.
Materiel for the README on building, maybe?
--
Sent from:
That kind of thinking would be appropriate to an entity controlling the
market of wordprocessors, which neither of Openoffices is.
Now, quite a lot of journals accept submissions in the binary Word format,
not in the OOXML one. Wordprocessor without the export feature becomes sort
of useless in
When building the 6.3.4.2 from the released source archive on 64-bit linux,
there were two difficulties:
1) if configured with the '--with-export-validation' the build process
fails, as it seems like some rng schemas are expected to be in
subdirectories of the 'schema' subdirectory -- but those
a good guess.
Meanwhile, I'm bracing myself for the attempt to learn profiling, like
Jan-Marek tells me. :)
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Jan-Marek Glogowski fbihome.de> writes:
...
Thank you for your advice, Jan-Marek (didn't notice your previous answer to
me), Oliver and Miklos.
Will have to struggle with the profiling.
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOff
Hi all,
A question to developers: what could even cause
the drastic slowdown of parsing the ODT XML
parts or whatever goes in the writer after the
ODT zip archive is unpacked?
System is linux amd64, libraries compiled-in are
internal.
-Yury
On 09/02/16 14:37, jan iversen wrote:
On 10 Feb 2016, at 00:33, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasiev...@gmail.com> wrote:
A question to developers: what could even cause the drastic slowdown of parsing
the ODT XML parts or whatever goes in the writer after the ODT zip archive is
unpacked?
T
I would like a second opinion on this:
- can I get an answer to such question here in
this list?
- if not, where?
On bugzilla I was told to bring the issue here,
because 'it was not for the bugzilla'.
-Yury
On 09/02/16 14:52, jan iversen wrote:
Sent from my iPad, please excuse any
(in emulator)?
Building 4.* series was okay.
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
On 08/02/16 22:38, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
/apologies for sending this twice, but it seems
the list isn't working well/
Actually, it is the Gmane interface to the list
that's not working well; can't even get the
'followup' interface open; won't switch to
receiving the email stream yet, too
\
--disable-gstreamer-0-10 \
\
--without-fonts \
--without-junit \
--with-system-libs=no \
I don't know anything about linux profiling
and/or debugging. Could somebody help? Should I
build in some other distro (in emulator)?
Building 4.* series was okay.
-Yury
Hi all,
Could I know the set of configure options for the libreoffice.org linux builds?
I'm having strange (and new) issues with my local build, which the 'stock'
build has not.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/69790
I'm clueless here. Could you offer some advice?
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
ubles with unit tests on 64-bit Slackware 14.1, with 5.0 series,
too, I believe (no such issues with 5.1 series). Had to switch off testing
or ignore it, I don't rightly remember, the build was functional.
Might be this build routine part relies too heavily on modern libraries'
Hello, any chance of getting an advice on an obscure kind of problem?
I've made a local build of 5.1.0.2 on my 64-bit linux box and it's showing a
peculiar behaviour when opening a 'big' file (~150 pages, bare text with
headings three levels deep).
After the (quick completing) unpacking the
Lionel Elie Mamane lionel at mamane.lu writes:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:50:09AM +, Yury wrote:
(...) exporting a text with formulas (starmath equations) to
word2003 .DOC format.
Anyone using LO to prepare scientific papers, esp. in physics,
mathematics etc., would be inherently
Michael Stahl mstahl at redhat.com writes:
...
Where in the source (module, function(s)) are the coordinates for the
(formulas on export) preview images determined? I'd like to have it quick
fixed and wouldn't mind attempting to fix it myself.
most likely the preview image is created
documentation around or anything?
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Miklos Vajna vmiklos at collabora.co.uk writes:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:50:09AM +, Yury yury.tarasievich at
gmail.com wrote:
So, to deal with this, at least with point 2.1, one would need to know where
the processing of starmath metafile used in formula/equation conversion
never did any deep C++ programming. I have difficulties finding those places.
If somebody more acquainted with the subject would just point out the
relevant materiel?
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http
these days. But in general you have to be prepared to slog through the
code a bit and are hopefully protected from making disastrous change by
All right, things much clearer now, thanks a lot, guys!
Will try that slogging around ASAP. :)
-Yury
___
LibreOffice
mind attempting to fix it myself.
-Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Yury yury.tarasievich at gmail.com writes:
Could somebody have a look at the code generating formulas preview in
starmath export?
I have a feeling that bug 88697 in its part relating to the 'too high'
placement of exported formula preview in .DOC (and that's the last part of
88697 yet
Hello guys,
Could somebody have a look at the code generating formulas preview in
starmath export?
I have a feeling that bug 88697 in its part relating to the 'too high'
placement of exported formula preview in .DOC (and that's the last part of
88697 yet unresolved) is somehow connected with the
Yury yury.tarasievich at gmail.com writes:
I'm trying to create some kind of a stopgap solution for the
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88697
...
Never mind, guys, I've managed to do this (see issue page for details).
Thank to all who helped (empty set :))
-Yury
Hello guys,
I'm trying to create some kind of a stopgap solution for the
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88697
The issue is bibliography entries in recent versions of LO are not exported
correctly to word2003 (!) .DOC.
I have 4.3.7.1 built from sources and I've succeeded in
Thank you.
Now, where do we get a template for the new
format of locale?
Who collects the patches/datafiles?
Yury
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
.
Have no idea what's goes wrong, how to fix this, or, at least,
how to prevent this check from happening.
-Yury
...
.../lotuswordpro/qa/cppunit/test_lotuswordpro.cxx:130:
Assertion
Test name: (anonymous namespace)::LotusWordProTest::test
assertion failed
- Expression: bRes == bExpected
29 matches
Mail list logo
