On 12/13/2011 04:59 PM, Pedro wrote:
3) Following the same logic, deleted the LOdev profile and now 3.5.0 also
shows the same nice JRE needed message when executing the Letter Wizard
instead of crashing. Similarly, when I re-enabled the extensions mentioned
on 1) LO shows the nice JRE needed
LO stores information about a selected JRE in the user profile at
config/javasettings_*.xml. Can you verify that just deleting that file from
the bad old user profile would already be enough to solve the crash?
Yes, I can confirm that. I made some extensive testing.
This problem occurs if
On 12/14/2011 11:41 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
LO stores information about a selected JRE in the user profile at
config/javasettings_*.xml. Can you verify that just deleting that file from
the bad old user profile would already be enough to solve the crash?
Yes, I can confirm that. I made some
On 12/14/2011 11:54 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 12/14/2011 11:41 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
LO stores information about a selected JRE in the user profile at
config/javasettings_*.xml. Can you verify that just deleting that
file from
the bad old user profile would already be enough to solve the
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 19:53 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29.
Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java
Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4.
Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed.
Gosh; when you say
Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed.
Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ?
that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix.
Yep. I would say so :)
Conclusion
LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7;
Right
Conclusion
LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7;
Right there is no support there.
Today I noticed something funny I am testing out Ubuntu 12.04 which is
quite rock solid already. I have both the openjdk 6 and 7 jre and jdk's
installed. Yet when running autogen.sh on
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ?
that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix.
More gory details:
1) If you install LOdev and no Java is installed, LO 3.5.0 won't even start.
It crashes on the Splash screen
Hi Pedro,
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 07:59 -0800, Pedro wrote:
1) If you install LOdev and no Java is installed, LO 3.5.0 won't even start.
It crashes on the Splash screen while trying to load the Solver for
Nonlinear Programming and the Mediawiki Publisher extensions. Removing these
two allows to
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 07:59 -0800, Pedro wrote:
1) If you install LOdev and no Java is installed, LO 3.5.0 won't even start.
It crashes on the Splash screen while trying to load the Solver for
Nonlinear Programming and the Mediawiki
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
Most odd - can you file a bug with more specific details we can
continue the discussion there ? can you try from an empty user profile
etc. ? :-)
I'm confused. I did try an empty profile and reported all the details on the
email you are quoting...
Did you
Hi all
Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3:
Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29.
Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java
Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID:
Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the
upcoming LO 3.4.5. I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be
enabled on the Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java tab page, and that
File - Wizards - Letter... (which uses Java) looks reasonable.
Would
I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when
(date/time) this was added?
Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
understand it.
Sure, in our case there are central repositories
Hi Pedro,
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:05 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
...
There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it
Hi Tor, all
Thank you for all the replies
Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
understand it.
Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily
builds from the central
Hi Michael
There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't
include that fix?
Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1
will be coming next week or so I think).
I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central
repository by a developer
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
feature branches and merges...
Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was the time a change was
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
feature branches and
Hi Norbert
the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
keep track of it.
I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
provide a log file for each build
E.g.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Norbert
the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
keep track of it.
I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
provide a log file for each build
E.g.
I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
:) Thank you, then :)
Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
pulled after time X... I think?
And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
:) Thank you, then :)
Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
pulled
sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and
bear in mind timezone :-))
Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :)
for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since
otherwise you would not have found the file to start with.
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
:) Thank you, then :)
Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
Central
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
So, really, rather than time at which the tinderbox pulled, I argue
that recorded commit time of the HEAD node is a better identifier to
put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a
branch) a proper
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:04:36AM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
So, really, rather than time at which the tinderbox pulled, I argue
that recorded commit time of the HEAD node is a better identifier to
put in tarball
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi,
Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*)
Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight.
The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the
We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as
*only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human
convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier.
That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert
it is less reliable and at
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:01:05AM +, Pedro Lino wrote:
at best redundant with the git-sha...
Redundant is good!
And at best redundant is _not_ good. Esp. if it can be misunderstood by
nontechnical users.
Best,
Bjoern
___
LibreOffice mailing
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:01:05AM +, Pedro Lino wrote:
at best redundant with the git-sha...
Redundant is good!
And at best redundant is _not_ good. Esp. if it can be misunderstood by
nontechnical
What about the existing Java extensions? Quite a lot of people are using
Java to either writer extensions or use UNO Java bridge from an external
application.
How hard would it be to do AOT compilation of the Java bytecode of such
extensions (and the needed JRE and OOo/LO glue classes), and
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:30 +0100, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:47 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
Quite; cf. such uncertainty - it probably makes considerable sense to
look into a migration strategy from Java to (insert anything else). Some
candidates might be python
Rather than clumsily trying to convert Java-.net/mono I would
rather allow to have people write in those languages in the first place.
Sure. I was dreaming (having nightmares?) of converting compiled Java class
files to .NET assemblies... The source code for them would thus still continue
to
On 11/03/2010 04:06 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:30 +0100, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:47 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
Quite; cf. such uncertainty - it probably makes considerable sense to
look into a migration strategy from Java to (insert
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 07:50 -0600, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
Another even wilder idea would be to translate the Java bytecode
to .NET bytecode for the Windows case...
I suspect at this point the external pundits start screaming all at
once ;-) So - I would prefer using python, or native
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 01:50 +0200, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
Hi all.
There's a thing not clear to me and that involved go-oo too: the
relationship between LibreOffice and Java. Here i'm referring to the
Windows environment but under Linux/Mac should be the same.
Java isn't provided
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:47 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
Quite; cf. such uncertainty - it probably makes considerable sense to
look into a migration strategy from Java to (insert anything else). Some
candidates might be python for the more scripty pieces (though I hate
non-typed
Hi all.
There's a thing not clear to me and that involved go-oo too: the
relationship between LibreOffice and Java. Here i'm referring to the
Windows environment but under Linux/Mac should be the same.
Is it Java a requirements or it is considered an optional component?
If Java isn't
40 matches
Mail list logo
