Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 01/24/17 , Marcus wrote:

Am 24.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Pedro Giffuni:

Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure so I
will ask here:


I don't know every ASF policy. But I would guess it's up to the PMC to
define it. And we don't have a formal procedure.



Yes, I was wondering if there was some OOo guidelines we could follow.


But I think we should agree commonly what "supported platform" means and
what we understand. So, a short list of requirements would be helpful.
This will then be put into the Wiki for future reference.


FreeBSD is AFAICT, the only OS that ships AOO in it's official releases,
we have also been adding new features including (recently) support for
the PowerPC. This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases,
although we have a buildbot and I would expect, and it fact it happens,
that there is developer diligence in fixing breakages it detects.


Here I see some points for the requirements list. And "supported" could
mean it's not automatically available for download.



Well, I understand Apache Projects define binaries as release
"artifacts" and not part of a  a release itself. What matters is the
sourcecode release, so technically speaking binary releases are not 
critical.


There's also the issue that we don't (yet) support reproducible builds,
so even if we sign binaries, our binaries are not trustable.


Would anyone have some insight about any particular policy within the
project, or perhaps can I go ahead and add FreeBSD to the list for 4.2?


I see it as what Andrea and Matthias wrote so far. But I would say,
let's discuss what we want.



I agree with Andrea that there are different levels of what one could 
consider "support". If we just consider our capacity to generate

binaries and test them, I would say both OS/2 an MacOS X are under risk
of becoming unsupported in the near future.


BTW:
Offering binary builds for FreeBSD doesn't make sense as the normal way
would be to get the OpenOffice as source (the so-called ports) from a
FreeBSD server, compile it yourself and then just use it. So,
downloading and installing binaries is not the normal way. Do I remember
right?



I certainly don't want/need binary releases for FreeBSD. "Support" in 
FreeBSD's case would be something mostly symbolical, an indication

that OpenOffice in FreeBSD is expected to perform as well as in linux.

A parallel question is what supporting officially a platform involves:
it would mean we are willing to issue CVE's if the platform is affected,
and perhaps also that an error on such selected platforms may be 
considered a release blocker. We don't really follow any of those

criteria for OS/2, and when 4.2.0 was discussed we were about to
overrule the later for MacOS X.

As food for thought: my guess is that supporting officially a platform
should also merit some specific field when reporting bugs in bugzilla.

Just my $0.02,

Pedro.

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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Matthias Seidel]

If I look at https://openoffice.apache.org/ (at the end of the page)
FreeBSD is mentioned, OS/2 is not.

So I think it is just a matter of updating and synchronizing the two
pages...

Regards, Matthias


Am 24.01.2017 um 23:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
>> MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
>> list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure
>
> I don't think there is a formal procedure. OS/2 and FreeBSD should
> have the same status in the README.
>
>> This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases
>
> I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of
> "privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make
> available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux
> variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we
> as a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit
> patches upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD).
>
> I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't
> think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much
> here. For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user
> expects that "supported" means "available in binary form from the
> official site for this platform" then neither is supported.
>
> Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in
> favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding
> that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD
> release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that
> for OS/2 either).
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure


I don't think there is a formal procedure. OS/2 and FreeBSD should have 
the same status in the README.



This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases


I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of 
"privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make 
available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux 
variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we as 
a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit patches 
upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD).


I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't 
think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much here. 
For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user expects 
that "supported" means "available in binary form from the official site 
for this platform" then neither is supported.


Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in 
favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding 
that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD 
release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that 
for OS/2 either).


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

[lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello;

Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows, 
MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the 
list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure so I 
will ask here:


FreeBSD is AFAICT, the only OS that ships AOO in it's official releases, 
we have also been adding new features including (recently) support for 
the PowerPC. This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases, 
although we have a buildbot and I would expect, and it fact it happens, 
that there is developer diligence in fixing breakages it detects.


Would anyone have some insight about any particular policy within the 
project, or perhaps can I go ahead and add FreeBSD to the list for 4.2?


Regards,

Pedro.



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

Re: software interface addition

[Jorg Schmidt]

> From: dan bacchiocchi [mailto:danbac...@outlook.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:40 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: software interface addition
> 
> hi, i'm not a developer but I am more of an interface 
> developer who can't code.  i find ideas in software to make 
> them better.

It would be better if you first inform about the program.

> Please add the following additions.  Add a feature to save to 
> multiple locations.  I like to save my work to 3 different 
> drives folders.  I don't like running Microsoft synctoy very 
> much because I'm afraid I'll mess up with the locations. 

A few lines of macro code do this, and there are already similar extensions, 
e.g.
MultiSave or Writer's Tools.
 
> Pleas allow us a key combination for repetitive words.  For 
> example; one could press ctrl + N and that would popup a list 
> of words which are repeating.  

One such function has long been available, see Edit-AutoText ...



Jorg


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

Re: Chromebook Compatibility

[FR web forum]

https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6=78706=chromebook

- Mail original -
De: "Conner Holt" 
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mardi 24 Janvier 2017 16:02:52
Objet: Chromebook Compatibility 




I’m trying to find out if Open Office will work on the Chromebook OS. If it 
does please let me know. If not it could be a great opportunity to look into 
because Microsoft does not offer any of its suite to Chromebook except the 
online version. There is no way to edit your documents that are local except 
Google Docs which is very basic. I look forward to hearing back from you. 



Conner Holt 

Technical Department l Warranty |Sales 

Pioneer Dock Equipment 

1-800-337-6595 Direct Line 

1-866-728-6195 Tech Support Line 

1-931-486-0316 Fax 

conn...@pioneerleveler.com 

1x1 HP Series1x1 EVR650 Restraint


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

Chromebook Compatibility

[Conner Holt]

I'm trying to find out if Open Office will work on the Chromebook OS. If it 
does please let me know. If not it could be a great opportunity to look into 
because Microsoft does not offer any of its suite to Chromebook except the 
online version. There is no way to edit your documents that are local except 
Google Docs which is very basic. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Conner Holt
Technical Department l Warranty |Sales
Pioneer Dock Equipment
1-800-337-6595 Direct Line
1-866-728-6195 Tech Support Line
1-931-486-0316 Fax
conn...@pioneerleveler.com
[1x1 HP 
Series]
   [1x1 EVR650 Restraint] 

software interface addition

[dan bacchiocchi]

hi, i'm not a developer but I am more of an interface developer who can't code. 
 i find ideas in software to make them better.

Please add the following additions.  Add a feature to save to multiple 
locations.  I like to save my work to 3 different drives folders.  I don't like 
running Microsoft synctoy very much because I'm afraid I'll mess up with the 
locations.  Pleas allow us a key combination for repetitive words.  For 
example; one could press ctrl + N and that would popup a list of words which 
are repeating.  I write screenplays and novels.  I repeat peoples names often.  
I'd like this feature so I can just select by pressing the spacebar to scroll 
through the repetitive words and press enter when I find the one I like.  Of 
course right click would put the option to "set repetitive word"

Thanks,
Good luck,
Dan Bacchiocchi

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Fwd: [AOO-Templates]

[Martin Groenescheij]

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:[AOO-Templates]
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:13:10 +
From:   Ian Leel 
Reply-To:   us...@openoffice.apache.org
To: us...@openoffice.apache.org 



Sent from Mail for Windows 10
I have tried access template site however I am getting Access Denied Message, 
why is this so I am the owner of this laptop plus I am the main administrator?

Yours faithfully  Mr Ian Leel.