Am 08/10/2016 05:03 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 15:26
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING]
Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)
Am 08/09/2016 11:12 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
[top posting]
I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32,
Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the
actual
HOTFIX page, we need to have just a "general" instruction for ALL zips
that simply says -- "Unzip this package to some folder of your
choosing
and read the README that's included." Everything else should be in the
various READMEs for each platform.
yes, this shortens the webpage a lot.
I should be done with all edits by this evening for a final review
before zipping and signing.
When the ZIP files are ready, I can do the checks for Linux and Windows.
Marcus
[orcmid]
I have a working Windows batch-file script for installing the patch, but I have
not updated the documentation yet and I need to do tests on Windows XP to make
certain that the script works there too.
The next update for Windows will be version 0.1.0 and be beta level.
There might be an 0.2.0 if the README is changed from .txt to .html to get
around line-ending incompatibilities depending on what platform is used for
what.
Once those clear, we can look at adjustments for 1.0.0 and general release
after a little regression checking.
I suspect the general will happen on Thursday or Friday.
that fits perfectly for my weekend. I can do tests on Windows 10 and
also update the documentation - or at least make some suggestions.
Marcus
On 08/05/2016 09:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1
[TESTING].
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
[ ... ]
hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.
Should we get started on these?
it depends what we want that they should contain. The ZIP file for
Windows contains a LICENSE and NOTICE file as well as an ASC file
for
the DLL. As it is only a patch IMHO we don't need to provide another
LICENSE and NOTICE file which is already available in the OpenOffice
installation. Also the ASC is not necessary as we provide it already
(together with MD5 and SHA256) for the whole ZIP file.
[orcmid]
I think there is a misunderstanding. Two matters:
1. The use of LICENSE is required by the ALv2 itself, and the ASF
practice is to include NOTICE as well on binary distributions. The
patch qualifies, especially when it is moved to general distribution.
It is also easy and harmless to provide.
2. The reason for preserving the .asc on the shared-library binary
is because it authenticates with respect to who produced it and
establishes that it has not been modified as supplied in the package (or
as the result of some glitch in creation of the Zip). It provides a
level of accountability and, also, auditability.
Even though few people will check all of these, they remain possible
to be checked. Since this is a matter of security vulnerabilities and
involves elevation of privilege to perform, I believe it is important to
demonstrate diligence and care, so that users have confidence in this
procedure to the extent they are comfortable. Also, if it becomes
necessary to troubleshoot a problem with these patch applications, we
have the means to authenticate what they are using to ensure there are
no counterfeits being offered to users.
That means that only the README and library file remains.
When the README for Windows keep its length then I don't want to
copy
this on the dowload webpage. ;-)
So, when we put the README for all platforms in their ZIP files then
we
can just put a pointer to it on the download webpage and thats it.
[orcmid]
Yes, that seems like a fine idea. The README can be linked the same
way the .md5, .sha256, and .asc are linked.
Also, the README may become simpler if we can link to some of the
information and not have so much detail in the README text itself. It
might even be useful to have an .html README for that matter. But that
is all extra. Right now I think we want to get into the testing and see
how to smooth what we have.
PS: A friend of mine is looking into the MacOSX situation. He points
out that one can use the Finder to do the job without users having to
use Terminal sessions. I don't have further information at this time.
PPS: The inclusion of scripts that do the job is also worthy of
consideration, perhaps making it unnecessary to build executables. I
will be looking at finding a .bat file that works safely for the Windows
case. That can make the instructions much shorter :).
To cut a long story short:
I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
