Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote: On 10 October 2013 04:01, Samer Mansour samer...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'm proposing to have the icons (and related assets) updated for AOO 4.1 release. I would like to take the responsibility to see this gets done. Here is the icons that need to be updated: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO4.1+-+Desktop+Icons Related asset: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO4.1+-+Application+And+Launcher The Splash screen needs some changes; please see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our typical user is lost on the first shot. Also, the About screen says: This product was created by the OpenOffice community. I think that should say: This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community. I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but nothing else, at least not to me. We have made more than enough attribution to Apache compared to other projects and there related products. I talk most often about OpenOffice and not Apache OpenOffice and that will never change. Just my opinion Juergen You can see two examples of ideas on the first link. You can also suggest your own ideas verbally by commenting on the wiki page or visually by attaching it to the wiki. (Please don't reply ideas in this mailing list, let us know if you have trouble) I am putting a deadline for the idea submission and discussion in 30 days, November 9th, 2013. Once we reach the deadline, we will have a separate discussion for optimizing for the best user experience. This is not a contest or a call for public proposals. This is regular, needs to be done, no-bikeshedding-please work. When the deadline Nov 9th arrives, if there is more than one viable solution, we will try to reach consensus without a end user vote. eg. We will not be doing what we did with the logo, that was a special case because it is the face of AOO. Samer Mansour - 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] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
+1 for we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand ~~ Thank you very much for your time. ~~ Siva P, Acquisition Coordinator, Talent Infotech Inc, 304 Canterbury Way, Severna Park, MD 21146. Fax: 425-696-9020. ~~
Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote: The Splash screen needs some changes; please see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our typical user is lost on the first shot. Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the feather with [The] Apache Software Foundation text only. Also, the About screen says: This product was created by the OpenOffice community. I think that should say: This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community. I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but nothing else, at least not to me. Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, OpenOffice can suffice in this context. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: The Number of Active Forum Administrators
On 2013/10/18 06:21, Ricardo Berlasso said: 2013/10/16 Ricardo Berlasso rgb.m...@gmail.com 2013/10/16 imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw On 2013/10/16 08:10, Ricardo Berlasso said: 2013/10/15 imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw Besides, I would like to call for help from another PMC member as the administrator of all the 10 language forum, as a back up of me (and so will I be the back up of you). You don't need to understand all the 10 languages. :p You don't need to get involved into the actual forum operation. But it would be nice to have experience in forum operation and communication (i.e. was a moderator somewhere for months). If knowing the forum ACP and moderator panel is enough (I know nothing about databases, servers and all those scaring things that run behind the forum software), you can count on me. That would be great! ^_^ Have you registered your account on all the 10 forums? Just on three of them. Other than the ES forum, I'm registered on EN forums (user id: RGB) and on IT forums (user id: RGB-it). On the next couple of days I'll register on all the others. Ok, I just registered on all the other forums, always with RGB as user id. OK. Done. I have added you to both of the Administrators and Global moderators groups of all the 10 forum. You may check. Welcome. ^_*' Regards, Ricardo Regards, Ricardo Regards, Ricardo -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids http://www.openoffice.org/EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Re[2]: [CWiki] new default access rights active
Hi Andrea, I was hoping that if you could count me in. Thanks. Full name: Steve Yin On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Yakov Reztsov yakovr...@mail.ru wrote: Whitelisted: ~liushenf Shenfeng Liu ~yak (Yakov [Reztsov]) - note it's yak not yakov Regards, Andrea. Thanks! -- Yakov Reztsov -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
[proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre. As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be considered in a makefile. My suggestion is on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a lot, and some of them might be in use. thanks in advance for your comments.
Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
On 10/18/13 11:32 AM, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre. As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be considered in a makefile. My suggestion is on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a lot, and some of them might be in use. thanks in advance for your comments. first of all thanks for your interest to move things forward here. But keep in mind that it is a very important area and we have to double check everything before we drop an option ... For example build --from is an often used option and as long as we have no realdependencies that work properly we need probably something like this. The html switches should have at least a replacement, we need something that can be used to for the build bots for example. We have at least to show an alternative approach to use log files or whatever. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. Hi Jan, it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system. But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system works. Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal. Some remarks regarding the missing options: --from module This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently (also in the form --all:module). Note that if you are in moduleA and call 'make --from moduleB' then all modules are built a) which moduleA depends on b) but not those that moduleB depends on c) Both moduleA and moduleB are built. --prepare Also one option that is important for our every day work. Use case: You make changes in module and are not sure if these changes are compatible/incompatible. To be on the safe side you discard the output of all depending modules. To save time you keep the output of all other modules. Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' to prepare a build after making changes in svx. --since module A variant of '--from'. The only difference is that module itself is not built. If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then it is not too difficult to support --from/--since. I made some experiments in this direction but was to lazy to finish them. --job --pre_job --post_job These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules. - I have not used the rest of the unsupported options and would not miss them. Others may have other sets of options that are important to them. Some general remarks: - Why keep one makefile per module? Why not put all the inter-module dependencies into one file (like my script does)? - Why not use the oportunity to move (a part of) the build environment out of the way to, say, build/ ? - How are dependencies between modules handled (just the manual dependencies from prj/build.lst or also the file dependencies introduced by gmake). - How is the output of the individual calls to dmake or GNU make handled/made accessible. Ie. if there is a build error, how can I look up the corresponding build output? - Are the gmake makefiles included (run in the same process) or is GNU make started for them it its own process? Regards, Andre It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre. As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be considered in a makefile. My suggestion is on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a lot, and some of them might be in use. thanks in advance for your comments. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. One thing that I forgot earlier: Can you state the problems with build.pl that you are addressing and how the new approach does better? -Andre It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre. As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be considered in a makefile. My suggestion is on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a lot, and some of them might be in use. thanks in advance for your comments. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
sd On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. Hi Jan, it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system. But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system works. Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal. First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed before implemented, hence the wiki page. Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system, its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system. I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have. Some remarks regarding the missing options: --from module This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently (also in the form --all:module). Note that if you are in moduleA and call 'make --from moduleB' then all modules are built a) which moduleA depends on b) but not those that moduleB depends on c) Both moduleA and moduleB are built. I have changed the documentation. I use the --all:module myself very often, and have changed the documentation, because it is of course supported. The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail that can be easily corrected (have module/Makefile calling main/Makefile. I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments. --prepare Also one option that is important for our every day work. Use case: You make changes in module and are not sure if these changes are compatible/incompatible. To be on the safe side you discard the output of all depending modules. To save time you keep the output of all other modules. Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' to prepare a build after making changes in svx. Documentation changed, funny thing is that svx does not clear correctly on my ubuntu build. --since module A variant of '--from'. The only difference is that module itself is not built. If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then it is not too difficult to support --from/--since. I made some experiments in this direction but was to lazy to finish them. My approach is very similar, but I failed to see how --since is supported. And question is if its real important. --job --pre_job --post_job These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules. I have added them, they are by the way a good example why we need a discussion I have never used them. However maybe the real discussion is do we want to replace build and have a main/Makefile instead? - I have not used the rest of the unsupported options and would not miss them. Others may have other sets of options that are important to them. Some general remarks: - Why keep one makefile per module? Why not put all the inter-module dependencies into one file (like my script does)? Ups, I did not explain that correctly, I propose 1 Makefile main/Makefile with all inter-module and 1 Makefile module/Makefile that today just will call the old makefiles as described in prj/build.lst - Why not use the oportunity to move (a part of) the build environment out of the way to, say, build/ ? You have guessed my next step. - How are dependencies between modules handled (just the manual dependencies from prj/build.lst or also the file dependencies introduced by gmake). See doc. on --from. Its done with module.done files - How is the output of the individual calls to dmake or GNU make handled/made accessible. Ie. if there is a build error, how can I look up the corresponding build output? see doc. script make_log - Are the gmake makefiles included (run in the same process) or is GNU make started for them it its own process? For a start they would be called (own process), but its something where I have no strong opinions. Please (just to be sure), this proposal has nothing to do with the students work, its simply because I saw a positive discussion on removing build.pl, and spent a couple of hours looking at it. If there is a preference not to remove build.pl I will simply forget it. rgds jan I. Regards, Andre It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre. As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be considered in a makefile. My suggestion is on http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Build_System_Analysis:** build.pl_versus_makefilehttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a lot, and some of them might be in use. thanks
Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
Andrea, I've done as you said and attached to the bug ticket. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 If everyone can lazy agree we should commit it. Samer Mansour On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote: The Splash screen needs some changes; please see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=123491https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our typical user is lost on the first shot. Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the feather with [The] Apache Software Foundation text only. Also, the About screen says: This product was created by the OpenOffice community. I think that should say: This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community. I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but nothing else, at least not to me. Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, OpenOffice can suffice in this context. Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
On 10/18/13 2:44 PM, Samer Mansour wrote: Andrea, I've done as you said and attached to the bug ticket. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 If everyone can lazy agree we should commit it. we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment already but my preference would be 1. drop it completely or 2. make the Apache logo much smaller and move it down, it is to dominant at the moment Juergen Samer Mansour On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote: The Splash screen needs some changes; please see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=123491https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our typical user is lost on the first shot. Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the feather with [The] Apache Software Foundation text only. Also, the About screen says: This product was created by the OpenOffice community. I think that should say: This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community. I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but nothing else, at least not to me. Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, OpenOffice can suffice in this context. Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-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] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote: sd On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. Hi Jan, it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system. But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system works. Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal. First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed before implemented, hence the wiki page. Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system, its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system. Yes, that is how I understood it. I just did not know how to call the build.pl replacement. I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have. Some remarks regarding the missing options: --from module This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently (also in the form --all:module). Note that if you are in moduleA and call 'make --from moduleB' then all modules are built a) which moduleA depends on b) but not those that moduleB depends on c) Both moduleA and moduleB are built. I have changed the documentation. I use the --all:module myself very often, and have changed the documentation, because it is of course supported. The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail that can be easily corrected (have module/Makefile calling main/Makefile. I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments. I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I will try to explain what I think they do. Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and E. where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D. A ' make all' would mean 'make E'. The dependencies would then lead to building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order. If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be built. A 'make --since C' would only build D and E. If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are built. Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D. Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make --all:module' does not). Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B') module A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or not. Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build all modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly. Thus the options '--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built. The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid use case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then in the simple example above. Let's say that if we stand in instsetoo_native and call 'make --from svx sfx2'. Note that svx depends on sfx2. This would build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend (directly or indirectly) on svx OR sfx2. While this is easy to do with eg Perl I am not sure how to handle this with just a Makefile. The straightforward approach with handling module.done files does not work. And that is one of the reasons why I don't think that (GNU) makefiles are a good solution for any problem. Most of us are used to program object oriented/imperative. Makefiles require a declarative approach. Maybe the use of Perl is not such a bad idea. Maybe it would be better to reimplement build.pl with a lot fewer options and with better readable code. -Andre --prepare Also one option that is important for our every day work. Use case: You make changes in module and are not sure if these changes are compatible/incompatible. To be on the safe side you discard the output of all depending modules. To save time you keep the output of all other modules. Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' to prepare a build after making changes in svx. Documentation changed, funny thing is that svx does not clear correctly on my ubuntu build. --since module A variant of '--from'. The only difference is that module itself is not built. If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then it is not too difficult to support --from/--since. I made some experiments in this direction but was to lazy to finish them. My approach is very similar, but I failed to see how --since is supported. And question is if its real important. --job --pre_job --post_job These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules. I have added them, they are by the way a good example why we
Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
Am 18.10.2013 14:51, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment already but my preference would be 1. drop it completely or plus: ... members of the OpenOffice community. and perhaps (compare with Help, Info): Copyright ... The A... S... F... -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
On 18 October 2013 15:00, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote: sd On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. Hi Jan, it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system. But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system works. Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal. First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed before implemented, hence the wiki page. Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system, its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system. Yes, that is how I understood it. I just did not know how to call the build.pl replacement. I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have. Some remarks regarding the missing options: --from module This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently (also in the form --all:module). Note that if you are in moduleA and call 'make --from moduleB' then all modules are built a) which moduleA depends on b) but not those that moduleB depends on c) Both moduleA and moduleB are built. I have changed the documentation. I use the --all:module myself very often, and have changed the documentation, because it is of course supported. The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail that can be easily corrected (have module/Makefile calling main/Makefile. I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments. I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I will try to explain what I think they do. Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and E. where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D. A ' make all' would mean 'make E'. The dependencies would then lead to building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order. If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be built. A 'make --since C' would only build D and E. If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are built. Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D. Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make --all:module' does not). Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B') module A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or not. Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build all modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly. Thus the options '--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built. The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid use case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then in the simple example above. Let's say that if we stand in instsetoo_native and call 'make --from svx sfx2'. Note that svx depends on sfx2. This would build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend (directly or indirectly) on svx OR sfx2. got it, now I just have one problem, why would you not build the dependent modules, if they needed to be built, thats a scenario I dont understand. With a central makefile, module/makefile will not be called so we do not waste cpu cycles. With the .done files, we know when a module was last built and all modules that depend it should be rebuilt which the rule module.done : module_depend.done will ensure, so If we have A - B - C - D I go in B, and call make, then when I go in D and make, B,C,D will be made. If we have A - B - D C - D and do the same then only D will be made. So --from is not really saving anything ? While this is easy to do with eg Perl I am not sure how to handle this with just a Makefile. The straightforward approach with handling module.done files does not work. And that is one of the reasons why I don't think that (GNU) makefiles are a good solution for any problem. Most of us are used to program object oriented/imperative. Makefiles require a declarative approach. Maybe the use of Perl is not such a bad idea. Maybe it would be better to reimplement build.pl with a lot fewer options and with better readable code. I agree that makefiles are nowhere near a good solution to many of these problems, but its like windows, I dont like it, but everybody uses it. We could easily write a new build.pl, that also took care of the local makefiles, but our build system would not be in the mainstream, and e.g. the distros would not like to integrate AOO. I have over the last years followed
Re: Link to Windows SDK 4.0.1 is broken
Forwarding to Henry, since I don't think he is subscribed to the mailing list. -Rob On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com wrote: Henry, Do you mean the link: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.1/binaries/SDK/Apache_OpenOffice-SDK_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe ? From the page: http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html ? I just tried it and downloaded it successfully. But it looks like the link from this page is incorrect: http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html -Rob - Shenfeng (Simon) 2013/10/18 Polk, Henry henry.p...@caremark.com Hi. Just want to let you know when I click on download link to Windows SDK 4.0.1, web servers reports there is no such file. Thanks. Henry Polk | CVS|Caremark Corp | Advisor Technical, Dispensing Automation Team | cell 224-436-1432 | office 847-484-9306 | 2100 E.Lake Cook Rd, Buffalo Grove, IL, 60089 | hp...@caremark.com mailto:hp...@caremark.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Link to Windows SDK 4.0.1 is broken
Yes. The install package for Office is ok, it's just SDK package was giving me an error. This is exact error from web server: The requested URL /dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.1/binaries/SDK/Apache_OpenOffice-SDK_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe was not found on this server. I have tried download this from two different locations and got same result. Henry Polk | CVS|Caremark Corp | Advisor Technical, Dispensing Automation Team | cell 224-436-1432 | office 847-484-9306 | 2100 E.Lake Cook Rd, Buffalo Grove, IL, 60089 | hp...@caremark.com -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:15 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Polk, Henry Subject: Re: Link to Windows SDK 4.0.1 is broken Forwarding to Henry, since I don't think he is subscribed to the mailing list. -Rob On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com wrote: Henry, Do you mean the link: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.1/binar ies/SDK/Apache_OpenOffice-SDK_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe ? From the page: http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html ? I just tried it and downloaded it successfully. But it looks like the link from this page is incorrect: http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html -Rob - Shenfeng (Simon) 2013/10/18 Polk, Henry henry.p...@caremark.com Hi. Just want to let you know when I click on download link to Windows SDK 4.0.1, web servers reports there is no such file. Thanks. Henry Polk | CVS|Caremark Corp | Advisor Technical, Dispensing Automation Team | cell 224-436-1432 | office 847-484-9306 | 2100 E.Lake Cook Rd, Buffalo Grove, IL, 60089 | hp...@caremark.com mailto:hp...@caremark.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.
On 18.10.2013 15:58, janI wrote: On 18 October 2013 15:00, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote: sd On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote: Hi. due to the discussion in thread Mentor a new build system, I have made a proposal for a central Makefile located in main. Hi Jan, it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system. But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system works. Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal. First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed before implemented, hence the wiki page. Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system, its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system. Yes, that is how I understood it. I just did not know how to call the build.pl replacement. I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have. Some remarks regarding the missing options: --from module This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently (also in the form --all:module). Note that if you are in moduleA and call 'make --from moduleB' then all modules are built a) which moduleA depends on b) but not those that moduleB depends on c) Both moduleA and moduleB are built. I have changed the documentation. I use the --all:module myself very often, and have changed the documentation, because it is of course supported. The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail that can be easily corrected (have module/Makefile calling main/Makefile. I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments. I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I will try to explain what I think they do. Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and E. where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D. A ' make all' would mean 'make E'. The dependencies would then lead to building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order. If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be built. A 'make --since C' would only build D and E. If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are built. Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D. Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make --all:module' does not). Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B') module A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or not. Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build all modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly. Thus the options '--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built. The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid use case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then in the simple example above. Let's say that if we stand in instsetoo_native and call 'make --from svx sfx2'. Note that svx depends on sfx2. This would build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend (directly or indirectly) on svx OR sfx2. got it, now I just have one problem, why would you not build the dependent modules, if they needed to be built, thats a scenario I dont understand. With a central makefile, module/makefile will not be called so we do not waste cpu cycles. With the .done files, we know when a module was last built and all modules that depend it should be rebuilt which the rule module.done : module_depend.done will ensure, so If we have A - B - C - D I go in B, and call make, then when I go in D and make, B,C,D will be made. If we have A - B - D C - D and do the same then only D will be made. So --from is not really saving anything ? a) In your example you first go into B then, in a second step, into D. The '--from' option lets you do the same (well, not really the same, but see below) just from D. b) You go first to B and call make. This makes A, if necessary, then B. The making of A is exactly the thing that you want to prevent with the '--from' option. Go into D and call 'make --from B'. A is not built. c) After the discussion with you I am not sure if we still need --from because the two reasons I know for its existence my not be relevant with the new approach. c1) With the '--from' option you can tweak the dependency rules at runtime (a bit). This allows you to exclude projects from being built when you know that that is not necessary. But from experience I know that can lead to very subtle errors. Letting the system determine what to built is usually more reliable. c2) With build.pl a 'build --all' still builds
Re: Open Office 4.01
Am 10/18/2013 08:11 PM, schrieb Jerry Slivka: Hi, I've been a loyal user of Open Office for the past several years. The spreadsheet does a nice job of replacing the basics of Excel. Two things though that I really would like to see be improved or added for future releases: 1) In a large spreadsheet I block several cells and only want to print those cells. Print Preview and Print wants to print the whole spreadsheet, which could be several pages. But, maybe I only need a half page or about one page only. Maybe there is a way of doing it, but try as I do I can't seem to get to print only what I've blocked or highlighted. please have a look for the option Selected cells when opening the Print dialog via File - Print. Then also the print preview is showing only the highlighted cells. 2) Excel has a very nice block and move feature. You can block or highlight a group of cells and just drag them to a different location and keep the formatting of the moved cells. This is slick and you don't have to go thru a copy and paste procedure which is much more cumbersome. Selecting cells and move via mouse is working fine and the cell content as well the formatting is moved. I don't see a problem here. Maybe you need to give us more details about what exact steps you are doing? Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
Am 10/18/2013 02:51 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 10/18/13 2:44 PM, Samer Mansour wrote: Andrea, I've done as you said and attached to the bug ticket. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 If everyone can lazy agree we should commit it. we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment already but my preference would be 1. drop it completely or 2. make the Apache logo much smaller and move it down, it is to dominant at the moment A link is indeed not useful in this dialog. However, I would leave the graphic - with a smaller size. Marcus On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.orgwrote: On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote: The Splash screen needs some changes; please see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=123491https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491 we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our typical user is lost on the first shot. Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the feather with [The] Apache Software Foundation text only. Also, the About screen says: This product was created by the OpenOffice community. I think that should say: This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community. I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but nothing else, at least not to me. Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, OpenOffice can suffice in this context. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Open Office 4.01
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Slivka jerrysli...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I've been a loyal user of Open Office for the past several years. The spreadsheet does a nice job of replacing the basics of Excel. Two things though that I really would like to see be improved or added for future releases: 1) In a large spreadsheet I block several cells and only want to print those cells. Print Preview and Print wants to print the whole spreadsheet, which could be several pages. But, maybe I only need a half page or about one page only. Maybe there is a way of doing it, but try as I do I can't seem to get to print only what I've blocked or highlighted. 2) Excel has a very nice block and move feature. You can block or highlight a group of cells and just drag them to a different location and keep the formatting of the moved cells. This is slick and you don't have to go thru a copy and paste procedure which is much more cumbersome. Keep up the good work! Jerry [?] Hello Jerry, If I understand you correctly, the equivalent actions in Calc are: 1. Highlight the cells you want to print. Select the menu Format - Print Ranges - Define. Selecting File - Page Preview will then show only the selected cells. 2. Highlight the cells you want to move. Left click and hold the mouse button down inside the selected range (not at the edge of the range as in Excel) and drag to the new location. I hope that helps. Francis
Re: The Number of Active Forum Administrators
2013/10/18 imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw On 2013/10/18 06:21, Ricardo Berlasso said: 2013/10/16 Ricardo Berlasso rgb.m...@gmail.com 2013/10/16 imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw On 2013/10/16 08:10, Ricardo Berlasso said: 2013/10/15 imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw Besides, I would like to call for help from another PMC member as the administrator of all the 10 language forum, as a back up of me (and so will I be the back up of you). You don't need to understand all the 10 languages. :p You don't need to get involved into the actual forum operation. But it would be nice to have experience in forum operation and communication (i.e. was a moderator somewhere for months). If knowing the forum ACP and moderator panel is enough (I know nothing about databases, servers and all those scaring things that run behind the forum software), you can count on me. That would be great! ^_^ Have you registered your account on all the 10 forums? Just on three of them. Other than the ES forum, I'm registered on EN forums (user id: RGB) and on IT forums (user id: RGB-it). On the next couple of days I'll register on all the others. Ok, I just registered on all the other forums, always with RGB as user id. OK. Done. I have added you to both of the Administrators and Global moderators groups of all the 10 forum. You may check. Checked! Regards, Ricardo Welcome. ^_*' Regards, Ricardo Regards, Ricardo Regards, Ricardo -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids http://www.openoffice.org/EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
Re: The Number of Active Forum Administrators
On 15/10/2013 imacat wrote: That means the following forums will need at least one more administrator: ... * IT (Italian, Italiano) As for the Italian forum, I believe we are covered by RGB now that he is an administrator on all forums: he is a regular poster on the Italian forum. If this is not enough, I can switch from global moderator to administrator as a backup of Paolo (in CC). But, besides the good practice of always having a backup, I think that we don't need more administrators to manage the duties on the Italian forum. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [CWiki] new default access rights active
Steve Yin wrote: I was hoping that if you could count me in. Thanks. Full name: Steve Yin Whitelisted: ~steve.yin Steve Yin In general, I've now tried to whitelist all committers where I could confidently the Apache username and real name with the CWiki username, real name and contributions. Of course, anybody (no matter if a committer or not) who needs editing rights on CWiki and does not have them even with these updates can request to be whitelisted here. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Please give me CWiki edit permissions
Hello, Could you please provide Edit Permissions for username: kitafern for the CWiki. Thank you,
