Re: AOO 4.2.x development branch created
What action is there to take? It is a valid action by a downstream. Do we wish they posted changes upstream? Yes! Can we require it? No! Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 17, 2019, at 9:19 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > The Question is: > > Do we want to take action here or not? > > >> On 17.01.19 21:19, Matthias Seidel wrote: >> Hi Marcus, >> >>> Am 17.01.19 um 20:42 schrieb Marcus: Am 17.01.19 um 13:41 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Two of my commits were immediately picked by LO. [1] [2] Always nice to see, that down streaming still works for the fork... :-D >>> sure, better then to draw this on their own. >>> >>> Again with a note who has tested and reviewed it - which is totally >>> fine - but no hint where it comes from and who is the author. They >>> still don't want to tell where they get the code from. >> Not exactly, Pilot_Pirx is me... ;-) >> >> But now it looks like I would have committed it directly to LO, while >> they just monitor aoo/trunk and take what they can use. [1] >> >> Regards, >> >>Matthias >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/1170f10906a9bca78782df6ab1b6a4e20cf0435a >> >>> Is this redicioulous or just sad? I don't know. :-( >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/28dee1129c7a9c4da34b9253aefd6c6b2df1a073 [2] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/9796738e1149a99f8b3ff687b0f72264ba3a56ff > Am 14.01.19 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > At this stage, I think just back porting (svn merge) to the AOO42X > branch is fine. > As we get close to a release, we'll need to either have an RM > approve it > or so something like creating a STATUS file, with a list of proposed > backports > and requiring at least 3 +1s to backport (ie: RTC) > >> On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Matthias Seidel >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> Am 09.01.19 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Ahh... something w/ the cppuhelper stuff. Obviously, some UDK issue I'm thinking... >> How is the process to get commits merged from trunk to AOO42X? >> >> I adjusted some pointers for Windows and Linux: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851110 >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=185 >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851214 >> >> Additionally I updated some pointers for OS/2. I know that Bitwise is >> already working on a port of 4.2.0, so they would be useful. >> >> Since it took me several attempts it would be easier, if I would >> commit >> them directly. .. >> >> Regards >> >> Matthias >> >>> Yeppers... for sure it's the udk versioning, which is more a Linux >>> thing than a macOS (or Windows) thing. >>> >>> Will look into either hacking around it or something else. I >>> thought I had fixed it. Obviously not :( >>> >>> - >>> 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 > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO 4.2.x development branch created
The Question is: Do we want to take action here or not? On 17.01.19 21:19, Matthias Seidel wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > Am 17.01.19 um 20:42 schrieb Marcus: >> Am 17.01.19 um 13:41 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>> Two of my commits were immediately picked by LO. [1] [2] >>> >>> Always nice to see, that down streaming still works for the fork... :-D >> sure, better then to draw this on their own. >> >> Again with a note who has tested and reviewed it - which is totally >> fine - but no hint where it comes from and who is the author. They >> still don't want to tell where they get the code from. > Not exactly, Pilot_Pirx is me... ;-) > > But now it looks like I would have committed it directly to LO, while > they just monitor aoo/trunk and take what they can use. [1] > > Regards, > > Matthias > > [1] > https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/1170f10906a9bca78782df6ab1b6a4e20cf0435a > >> Is this redicioulous or just sad? I don't know. :-( >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/28dee1129c7a9c4da34b9253aefd6c6b2df1a073 >>> >>> [2] >>> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/9796738e1149a99f8b3ff687b0f72264ba3a56ff >>> >>> >>> Am 14.01.19 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: At this stage, I think just back porting (svn merge) to the AOO42X branch is fine. As we get close to a release, we'll need to either have an RM approve it or so something like creating a STATUS file, with a list of proposed backports and requiring at least 3 +1s to backport (ie: RTC) > On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 09.01.19 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> Ahh... something w/ the cppuhelper stuff. Obviously, some UDK >>> issue I'm thinking... > How is the process to get commits merged from trunk to AOO42X? > > I adjusted some pointers for Windows and Linux: > > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851110 > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=185 > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851214 > > Additionally I updated some pointers for OS/2. I know that Bitwise is > already working on a port of 4.2.0, so they would be useful. > > Since it took me several attempts it would be easier, if I would > commit > them directly. .. > > Regards > > Matthias > >> Yeppers... for sure it's the udk versioning, which is more a Linux >> thing than a macOS (or Windows) thing. >> >> Will look into either hacking around it or something else. I >> thought I had fixed it. Obviously not :( >> >> - >> 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: svn commit: r1850895 - /openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk
Hi Jim, Am 16.01.19 um 22:36 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > I just picked a number that was big... maybe just use 1 ? :) 1 worked, AOO4.5.0 Windows builds are now installable... Regards, Matthias > >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Matthias Seidel >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> Am 09.01.19 um 20:40 schrieb j...@apache.org: >>> Author: jim >>> Date: Wed Jan 9 19:40:25 2019 >>> New Revision: 1850895 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1850895&view=rev >>> Log: >>> bump up to outrageous numbers... >>> >>> Modified: >>>openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk >>> >>> Modified: openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk >>> URL: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk?rev=1850895&r1=1850894&r2=1850895&view=diff >>> == >>> --- openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk (original) >>> +++ openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk Wed Jan 9 19:40:25 2019 >>> @@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ >>> # * >>> # $Id$ >>> >>> -RSCVERSION=420 >>> -RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800) >>> -BUILD=9800 >>> +RSCVERSION=450 >>> +RSCREVISION=450m1(Build:1009800) >>> +BUILD=1009800 >> This build number seems to make problems with Windows. >> >> It builds OK, but at installation the Windows installer throws "Internal >> error 2725". >> >> I validated openoffice450.msi and it complains about an "invalid version >> string". >> >> I don't know if it is a limitation of the Windows installer or something >> in our code, but I will do some tests with a shorter build number now... >> >> Regards, >> >>Matthias >> >>> LAST_MINOR=m1 >>> -SOURCEVERSION=AOO420 >>> +SOURCEVERSION=AOO450 >>> >>> >>> > > - > 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: AOO 4.2.x development branch created
Hi Marcus, Am 17.01.19 um 20:42 schrieb Marcus: > Am 17.01.19 um 13:41 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Two of my commits were immediately picked by LO. [1] [2] >> >> Always nice to see, that down streaming still works for the fork... :-D > > sure, better then to draw this on their own. > > Again with a note who has tested and reviewed it - which is totally > fine - but no hint where it comes from and who is the author. They > still don't want to tell where they get the code from. Not exactly, Pilot_Pirx is me... ;-) But now it looks like I would have committed it directly to LO, while they just monitor aoo/trunk and take what they can use. [1] Regards, Matthias [1] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/1170f10906a9bca78782df6ab1b6a4e20cf0435a > > Is this redicioulous or just sad? I don't know. :-( > > Marcus > > > >> [1] >> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/28dee1129c7a9c4da34b9253aefd6c6b2df1a073 >> >> [2] >> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/9796738e1149a99f8b3ff687b0f72264ba3a56ff >> >> >> Am 14.01.19 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> At this stage, I think just back porting (svn merge) to the AOO42X >>> branch is fine. >>> As we get close to a release, we'll need to either have an RM >>> approve it >>> or so something like creating a STATUS file, with a list of proposed >>> backports >>> and requiring at least 3 +1s to backport (ie: RTC) >>> On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Matthias Seidel wrote: Hi Jim, Am 09.01.19 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Ahh... something w/ the cppuhelper stuff. Obviously, some UDK >> issue I'm thinking... How is the process to get commits merged from trunk to AOO42X? I adjusted some pointers for Windows and Linux: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851110 https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=185 https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851214 Additionally I updated some pointers for OS/2. I know that Bitwise is already working on a port of 4.2.0, so they would be useful. Since it took me several attempts it would be easier, if I would commit them directly. .. Regards Matthias > Yeppers... for sure it's the udk versioning, which is more a Linux > thing than a macOS (or Windows) thing. > > Will look into either hacking around it or something else. I > thought I had fixed it. Obviously not :( > > > - > 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
beanshell
I just noticed that when including CatB components, beanshell is not included in trunk/4.2.x but IS with 4.1.x Any idea why the change? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO 4.2.x development branch created
Am 17.01.19 um 13:41 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Two of my commits were immediately picked by LO. [1] [2] Always nice to see, that down streaming still works for the fork... :-D sure, better then to draw this on their own. Again with a note who has tested and reviewed it - which is totally fine - but no hint where it comes from and who is the author. They still don't want to tell where they get the code from. Is this redicioulous or just sad? I don't know. :-( Marcus [1] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/28dee1129c7a9c4da34b9253aefd6c6b2df1a073 [2] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/9796738e1149a99f8b3ff687b0f72264ba3a56ff Am 14.01.19 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: At this stage, I think just back porting (svn merge) to the AOO42X branch is fine. As we get close to a release, we'll need to either have an RM approve it or so something like creating a STATUS file, with a list of proposed backports and requiring at least 3 +1s to backport (ie: RTC) On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Matthias Seidel wrote: Hi Jim, Am 09.01.19 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Ahh... something w/ the cppuhelper stuff. Obviously, some UDK issue I'm thinking... How is the process to get commits merged from trunk to AOO42X? I adjusted some pointers for Windows and Linux: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851110 https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=185 https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851214 Additionally I updated some pointers for OS/2. I know that Bitwise is already working on a port of 4.2.0, so they would be useful. Since it took me several attempts it would be easier, if I would commit them directly. .. Regards Matthias Yeppers... for sure it's the udk versioning, which is more a Linux thing than a macOS (or Windows) thing. Will look into either hacking around it or something else. I thought I had fixed it. Obviously not :( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Building AOO under Debian9
Well, the error I was hitting is fixed, yeah. You may need to blow away main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/* and rebuild > On Jan 17, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Mechtilde wrote: > > Hello, > > Am 15.01.19 um 19:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> As a reminder, w/ AOO 4.2.0, our Productname is now "Apache_OpenOffice" >> >> Notice the "_" :( >> >> I am guessing that's a dpg/deb restriction?? > > Does it mean it should build now? > > I get with r1851505 from aoo42x branch: > > . /usr/bin/fakeroot /usr/bin/epm -f deb openoffice-images > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/listfile/de/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst > --output-dir DEBS -v2 2>&1 | ... > Redundant argument in sprintf at > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pm line 192. > ... creating epm list file epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_4.lst ... > ... checking pool package ... > ... packaging required > ... starting unpatched epm ... > ... /usr/bin/fakeroot /usr/bin/epm -f deb openoffice-core04 > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_4.lst > --output-dir DEBS -v2 2>&1 | ... > Redundant argument in sprintf at > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pm line 192. > > ** > ERROR: ERROR: More than one new package in directory > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS > ( > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64.deb > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64) > in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) > ** > Success: Executed (Try 1): "/usr/bin/fakeroot /usr/bin/epm -f deb > openoffice-images > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/listfile/de/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst > --output-dir DEBS -v2 2>&1 |" successfully > ... cleaning the output tree ... > ... removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_281531547732693 ... > ... removing directory > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/stripped/de > ... > Error: ERROR: More than one new package in directory > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS > ( > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64.deb > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64) > in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool)stopping log at Thu > Jan 17 14:45:24 2019 > dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_de.deb' > > 1 module(s): > instsetoo_native > need(s) to be rebuilt > > Reason(s): > > ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making > /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/util > > When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build > by running: > > build --all:instsetoo_native > > >> > > -- > Mechtilde Stehmann > ## Apache OpenOffice > ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows > ## Debian Developer > ## PGP encryption welcome > ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Building AOO under Debian9
Hello, Am 15.01.19 um 19:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > As a reminder, w/ AOO 4.2.0, our Productname is now "Apache_OpenOffice" > > Notice the "_" :( > > I am guessing that's a dpg/deb restriction?? Does it mean it should build now? I get with r1851505 from aoo42x branch: . /usr/bin/fakeroot /usr/bin/epm -f deb openoffice-images /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/listfile/de/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir DEBS -v2 2>&1 | ... Redundant argument in sprintf at /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pm line 192. ... creating epm list file epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_4.lst ... ... checking pool package ... ... packaging required ... starting unpatched epm ... ... /usr/bin/fakeroot /usr/bin/epm -f deb openoffice-core04 /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_4.lst --output-dir DEBS -v2 2>&1 | ... Redundant argument in sprintf at /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pm line 192. ** ERROR: ERROR: More than one new package in directory /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS ( /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64.deb /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) ** Success: Executed (Try 1): "/usr/bin/fakeroot /usr/bin/epm -f deb openoffice-images /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/listfile/de/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir DEBS -v2 2>&1 |" successfully ... cleaning the output tree ... ... removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_281531547732693 ... ... removing directory /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/stripped/de ... Error: ERROR: More than one new package in directory /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS ( /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64.deb /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/de_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-images-4.2.0-1-linux-4.9-x86_64) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool)stopping log at Thu Jan 17 14:45:24 2019 dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_de.deb' 1 module(s): instsetoo_native need(s) to be rebuilt Reason(s): ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /home/mechtilde/aoo42x/main/instsetoo_native/util When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by running: build --all:instsetoo_native > -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Apache OpenOffice ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows ## Debian Developer ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: AOO 4.2.x development branch created
Two of my commits were immediately picked by LO. [1] [2] Always nice to see, that down streaming still works for the fork... :-D Regards, Matthias [1] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/28dee1129c7a9c4da34b9253aefd6c6b2df1a073 [2] https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/9796738e1149a99f8b3ff687b0f72264ba3a56ff Am 14.01.19 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > At this stage, I think just back porting (svn merge) to the AOO42X branch is > fine. > As we get close to a release, we'll need to either have an RM approve it > or so something like creating a STATUS file, with a list of proposed backports > and requiring at least 3 +1s to backport (ie: RTC) > >> On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Matthias Seidel >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> Am 09.01.19 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Ahh... something w/ the cppuhelper stuff. Obviously, some UDK issue I'm thinking... >> How is the process to get commits merged from trunk to AOO42X? >> >> I adjusted some pointers for Windows and Linux: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851110 >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=185 >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851214 >> >> Additionally I updated some pointers for OS/2. I know that Bitwise is >> already working on a port of 4.2.0, so they would be useful. >> >> Since it took me several attempts it would be easier, if I would commit >> them directly. .. >> >> Regards >> >>Matthias >> >>> Yeppers... for sure it's the udk versioning, which is more a Linux thing >>> than a macOS (or Windows) thing. >>> >>> Will look into either hacking around it or something else. I thought I had >>> fixed it. Obviously not :( >>> >>> >>> - >>> 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 > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
