Re: build breaker in solenv/bin/modules/install/logger.pm on ubuntu 12.04
On 01.12.2013 13:40, Efi wrote: On 11/30/2013 04:54 PM, jan i wrote: Hi. It seems the latest changes in logger.pm leads to a buildbreaker in instset_native. svn tell that this file was updated today, but I am not good at perl, at I cannot see what the problem is. Output from build --all: ... using package from pool ... creating epm list file epm_gid_Module_Root.lst ... ... checking pool package ... Stack Trace: /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pm:206in function installer::logger::Die /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pm:189in function installer::logger::print /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ packagepool.pm:172 in function installer::logger::printf /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ packagepool.pm:667 in function installer::packagepool::compare_package_content /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:930 in function installer::packagepool::package_is_up_to_date /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:2140 in function main::MakeNonWindowsBuild newline at start of line at /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pmline 738. dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.rpm' 1 module(s): instsetoo_native any advice ? Yes, can you try this patch? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=82021&action=diff I will commit this patch later this day unless I hear that it does not work (no, this not meant as a thread :-) Alternatively, or additionally, can you tell me how you build? The offending code is not triggered by our build bot builds nor by my local builds. It is good that you found this, I would like to be able to reproduce it. -Andre rgds jan I. I am getting a pretty similar error to yours , I use ubuntu 12.04 as well and I get the error: ERROR: ERROR: More than one new package in directory /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS ( /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-en-us-writer-4.1.0-1-linux-3.8-intel /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-en-us-writer-4.1.0-1-linux-3.8-intel.deb) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) ** stopping log at Sun Dec 1 14:23:20 2013 dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.deb' 1 module(s): instsetoo_native need(s) to be rebuilt Reason(s): ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util here is the response I got for mine: "This seems very similar to the problem reported by Jan a few minutes after you wrote. If that is the problem, the culprit is revision 1546570 and is not fixed yet, but you can go to your "aoo-trunk" directory and get an earlier revision to check that you can build it successfully. Something like: "svn up -r 1546569", then reconfigure and rebuild." You suspect the file logger.pm is causing the error so I moved to different revisions, specifically the 1546569, 1546568, 1545947 , and 1538529 that is the revision when the logger.pm last changed before the 1546570,when the logger.pm was updated. Sadly none of them did the trick and I kept getting the same error. I am not sure it is the same as yours but it seems pretty close. Maybe trying a revision before the change would work for you. Regards Efi. - 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: build breaker in solenv/bin/modules/install/logger.pm on ubuntu 12.04
On 2 December 2013 09:14, Andre Fischer wrote: > On 01.12.2013 13:40, Efi wrote: > >> >> On 11/30/2013 04:54 PM, jan i wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> >>> It seems the latest changes in logger.pm leads to a buildbreaker in >>> instset_native. >>> >>> svn tell that this file was updated today, but I am not good at perl, at >>> I >>> cannot see what the problem is. >>> >>> Output from build --all: >>> >>> ... using package from pool >>> ... creating epm list file epm_gid_Module_Root.lst ... >>> ... checking pool package ... >>> Stack Trace: >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ >>> installer/logger.pm:206in >>> function installer::logger::Die >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ >>> installer/logger.pm:189in >>> function installer::logger::print >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ >>> packagepool.pm:172 in function installer::logger::printf >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ >>> packagepool.pm:667 in function >>> installer::packagepool::compare_package_content >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:930 in >>> function installer::packagepool::package_is_up_to_date >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:2140 in >>> function main::MakeNonWindowsBuild >>> newline at start of line at >>> /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pmline >>> 738. >>> dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.rpm' >>> >>> 1 module(s): >>> instsetoo_native >>> >>> >>> any advice ? >>> >>> > Yes, can you try this patch? > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=82021&action=diff > > I will commit this patch later this day unless I hear that it does not > work (no, this not meant as a thread :-) > I will try the patch a bit later today. > > Alternatively, or additionally, can you tell me how you build? The > offending code is not triggered by our build bot builds nor by my local > builds. It is good that you found this, I would like to be able to > reproduce it. > Environment: Ubuntu 12.04 (server) standard installation ./configure --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk \ --with-dmake-url= http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 \ --with-epm-url= http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \ --enable-verbose \ --enable-category-b \ --enable-opengl \ --enable-dbus \ --enable-gstreamer \ --enable-bundled-dictionaries \ --with-lang="da en-US es" \ --with-package-format="rpm deb" \ --with-vendor="jani local build" I hope that helps. As you know I build very often, and this problem came with the latest "svn up" on trunk. thanks in advance for your patch. rgds jan I. > > -Andre > > rgds >>> jan I. >>> >>> I am getting a pretty similar error to yours , I use ubuntu 12.04 as >> well and I get the error: >> >> ERROR: ERROR: More than one new package in directory >> /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/ >> Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS ( >> /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/ >> Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ >> openoffice-en-us-writer-4.1.0-1-linux-3.8-intel/home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/ >> instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/ >> en-US_inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-en-us-writer-4.1.0-1-linux-3.8-intel.deb) >> >> in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) >> ** >> stopping log at Sun Dec 1 14:23:20 2013 >> dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.deb' >> >> 1 module(s): >> instsetoo_native >> need(s) to be rebuilt >> >> Reason(s): >> >> ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /home/efi/AOO/aoo-trunk/main/ >> instsetoo_native/util >> >> here is the response I got for mine: >> "This seems very similar to the problem reported by Jan a few minutes >> after you wrote. If that is the problem, the culprit is revision 1546570 >> and is not fixed yet, but you can go to your "aoo-trunk" directory and get >> an earlier revision to check that you can build it successfully. Something >> like: "svn up -r 1546569", then reconfigure and rebuild." >> >> You suspect the file logger.pm is causing the error so I moved to >> different revisions, specifically the 1546569, 1546568, 1545947 , and >> 1538529 that is the revision when the logger.pm last changed before the >> 1546570,when the logger.pm was updated. >> >> Sadly none of them did the trick and I kept getting the same error. I am >> not sure it is the same as yours but it seems pretty close. Maybe trying a >> revision before the change would work for you. >> >> Regards >> Efi. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For addition
Re: build breaker in solenv/bin/modules/install/logger.pm on ubuntu 12.04
On 02.12.2013 09:23, jan i wrote: On 2 December 2013 09:14, Andre Fischer wrote: On 01.12.2013 13:40, Efi wrote: On 11/30/2013 04:54 PM, jan i wrote: Hi. It seems the latest changes in logger.pm leads to a buildbreaker in instset_native. svn tell that this file was updated today, but I am not good at perl, at I cannot see what the problem is. Output from build --all: ... using package from pool ... creating epm list file epm_gid_Module_Root.lst ... ... checking pool package ... Stack Trace: /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ installer/logger.pm:206in function installer::logger::Die /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ installer/logger.pm:189in function installer::logger::print /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ packagepool.pm:172 in function installer::logger::printf /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ packagepool.pm:667 in function installer::packagepool::compare_package_content /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:930 in function installer::packagepool::package_is_up_to_date /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:2140 in function main::MakeNonWindowsBuild newline at start of line at /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/logger.pmline 738. dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.rpm' 1 module(s): instsetoo_native any advice ? Yes, can you try this patch? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=82021&action=diff I will commit this patch later this day unless I hear that it does not work (no, this not meant as a thread :-) I will try the patch a bit later today. Alternatively, or additionally, can you tell me how you build? The offending code is not triggered by our build bot builds nor by my local builds. It is good that you found this, I would like to be able to reproduce it. Environment: Ubuntu 12.04 (server) standard installation ./configure --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk \ --with-dmake-url= http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 \ --with-epm-url= http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \ --enable-verbose \ --enable-category-b \ --enable-opengl \ --enable-dbus \ --enable-gstreamer \ --enable-bundled-dictionaries \ --with-lang="da en-US es" \ --with-package-format="rpm deb" \ --with-vendor="jani local build" I hope that helps. As you know I build very often, and this problem came with the latest "svn up" on trunk. Interesting. I would have thought the relevant changes were active for a while now. Anyway, do you use the --with-packager-list= option when you call configure? I expect that to trigger the build breaker. thanks in advance for your patch. I break it, I fix it. Regards, Andre - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 80 million downloads
On 11/30/13 11:45 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 30-Nov-2013, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Hagar Delest >> wrote: Le 27/11/2013 20:23, Rob Weir a écrit : > Yesterday we reached 80,072,389 downloads. Well, I also saw this: https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=62425 (South Tyrol government to standardise on LibreOffice) and especially the quote from last post: "We opted for LibreOffice over OpenOffice because we >> think this gives us more guarantees. It has a more consistent and constantly growing community of developers and by statute has to be independent >> from corporations," Pfeifer said. >>> >>> 7000 desktops? Really? We get more than that many downloads every >>> *hour*, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (on average). Just because >>> our users are anonymous does not make them any less relevant. >> >> Quite. >>> LibO is getting more and more momentum (French referential uses LibO >> too, something that will be implemented in more and more institutions). I >> wonder why AOO doesn't report similar successes. >>> >>> South Tyrol has been migration to OpenOffice for nearly a decade now. >>> I remember seeing them give a presentation on this at the Orvietto >>> OpenOffice.org conference, for example. Hopefully one of these years >>> they will complete this task. But this is hardly news. >>> >> >> Indeed. In fact, their effort has gone in cycles, and those cycles seem to >> me related to the job tenacity of a few. Of more interest, as it relates to >> actualities, would be Munich's migration but also other cities' in Italy. >> >> Are we lacking marketing power? Or key people? >>> >>> It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Any one migrating to >>> a free office suite as part of a migration to Linux will either take >>> LibreOffice or Calligra. If we want to give them the easy choice of >>> AOO as well then we need to get AOO packages for the distros. >>> Personally I don't think the Linux desktop is worth the effort. That >>> is my personal view, and I don't force it on anyone else, but that's >>> my honest opinion. >> >> I agree with Rob. > > > but...as a Linux person, this is somewhat sad for me -- although I > personally have NO problems with installation. This said, the ease of > installation on Linux seems to depend a lot on how easy your distro makes > installing non-repo packages. My major concern at this point in the > continuation of Linux packaging for AOO in some form. I believe the clear message is that we will continue to support Linux and other platforms in the same way as today. But we need people, volunteers who have the interest and knowledge to work on a better system integration, a better build system that allow disros to build their own version of AOO for bundling easily and to fulfill their build requirements etc. And we should simply continue to deliver a good product. A good product will grow the interest of a good distro to offer it at least as alternative for their users. And if users ask more often for AOO on their preferred Linux distro, I am sure it will recognized over time. I don't have numbers but I heard from several people that customers move back to AOO from LO. Well I don't know the reason and don't have numbers but it shows me that we are not so bad and deliver something useful. Juergen > > > > >> I also tend to think that even for something like AOO, mobile is on the >> horizon and needs to be embraced. Not all modules of the suite will do well >> in mobile—I don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets, for instance, on a >> tablet. But I also don't relish the idea of doing spreadsheets on anything. >> > > >> >> I also don't cotton to the idea of porting AOO straight to Android or iOS. >> I prefer the idea of developing native ODT editors. >> >> But mobile is an inescapable object in our present's future. >> > > Agreed. > > >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -Rob >> >> -louis >>> >>> >> >> - >> 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: soltools need(s) to be rebuilt
On 01.12.2013 20:26, Απόστολος Συρόπουλος wrote: After reading the reply by jan I. I decided to try again with GCC. Now, compilation proceeds with no stupid problems as before. BTW, main/soltools/adjustvisibility/adjustvisibility.c does not compile with g++ but it compiles with CC so this is the only thing I had to do manually. However, now compilation stops as follows: [...] : ERROR: ld.so.1: checkdll: fatal: relocation error: file ../unxsogi.pro/lib/check_libuno_sal.so.3: symbol osl_isSingleCPU: referenced symbol not found [...] I see that file interlck_x86.s is old... but I have no idea why linking fails. Any ideas and/or suggestions? I suggest to look into main/sal/osl/unx/util.c. The check for a __SUNPRO_C define in line 316 looks suspicious. Is this define still active in newer compilers for your platform? If not please change the check so that this part of the code becomes active. You also said you switched compilers. Please make sure that there are no object files around that were build for the other compiler. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 80 million downloads
Has anyone offered to put AOO into the Ubuntu software centre as a trusted package automatically available? If not and there was no refusal to cooperate I don;t see how you can say Ubuntu truncates the freedom of the user. Anyone is free to do with Ubuntu the same things as with any other distro, as with all distros, somethings are easier to implement for non-geeks than others. I should think Ubuntu scores pretty highly on that score as it probably has more non-geek users than any other. On 2 December 2013 03:20, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag < > glennharveyliwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with > > AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice? > > LibreOffice. > The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the > subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it > hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command > line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache > OpenOffice. > > It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with > instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the > download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu > there. > > I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being > the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom of > the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community > that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more > ironic. > > louis > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > >> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with > it - > >> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I > suggest > >> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its really > up > >> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that > >> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it > to > >> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install > applications > >> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends on > >> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like > ours > >> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO. > >> > >> > >> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk wrote: > >>> > Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user to > install anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I > switched to Linux, I can assure you. > >>> > >>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other > LInuxes, > >> I > >>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've used; > >> and > >>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease of > >> OS > >>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you > can > >>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.) > > > > (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, for > a > >>> lot > > of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward > > non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.) > > > > And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* > Tell > >>> us > > about it :-). > > > > I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use Ubuntu > >>> and > likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of > >>> restrictions > and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another. > >>> > >>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because it's > >>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. > Whereas > >> I > >>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout and > >>> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about > >>> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy doats > >> and > >>> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs > >> scarfing > >>> oats & ivy.) > >>> > >>> louis > >>> - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ian > >> > >> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications < > >> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0> > >> > >> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables > >> > >> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 > >> > >> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield > >> Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: > >> 05560797, Registered in England
Re: Reg: Info about Bug
On 01/12/2013 Dhananjayan Santhanakrishnan wrote: I wish to take up this bug and work on it. How to proceed? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=56998 Very good! I see that hanya, who already fixed several bugs, has just submitted a patch or two for this one too. So I would recommend that, to start, you: 1) Build OpenOffice (this is done, as I assume from previous conversations here) and check that the bug still exists. 2) Post a comment to https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=56998 saying that you are a new developer and you will review hanya's patch as discussed on the dev list (you will need to register for Bugzilla). 3) Apply hanya's patches (I see two of them in the issue) to the source code and rebuild. In the process, actually look at hanya's patches to review the code. 4) Report on the bug page if the bug is solved or not. If you have any difficulties in a step, just ask. A note: after being dormant for weeks, issue 56998 is seeing (relatively) a lot of activity recently. It might happen that your work overlaps with other people's work in this specific case, but it's useful to learn anyway. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 80 million downloads
On 02-Dec-2013, at 02:54, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:22, Ian Lynch wrote: >>> We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. >> This is not a new thing and I've asked that we provide clear clear >> instructions to naive users (like, oh, me) about how to change it >> without going geek. > > There's a step-by-step guide at http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ ; isn't it > easy enough? Does it need more visibility? > It's easy enough; thanks. But I think we need to give it more visibility, as on the download page. For many not clued into English Geek talk, "Porting" is not obviously the place they would look to find this. Thanks louis > Regards, > Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: build breaker in solenv/bin/modules/install/logger.pm on ubuntu 12.04
On 2 December 2013 10:14, Andre Fischer wrote: > On 02.12.2013 09:23, jan i wrote: > >> On 2 December 2013 09:14, Andre Fischer wrote: >> >> On 01.12.2013 13:40, Efi wrote: >>> >>> On 11/30/2013 04:54 PM, jan i wrote: Hi. > > > It seems the latest changes in logger.pm leads to a buildbreaker in > instset_native. > > svn tell that this file was updated today, but I am not good at perl, > at > I > cannot see what the problem is. > > Output from build --all: > > ... using package from pool > ... creating epm list file epm_gid_Module_Root.lst ... > ... checking pool package ... > Stack Trace: > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ > installer/logger.pm:206in > function installer::logger::Die > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ > installer/logger.pm:189in > function installer::logger::print > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ > packagepool.pm:172 in function installer::logger::printf > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/ > packagepool.pm:667 in function > installer::packagepool::compare_package_content > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:930 in > function installer::packagepool::package_is_up_to_date > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/make_installer.pl:2140 in > function main::MakeNonWindowsBuild > newline at start of line at > /share/opensource/aoo/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/ > installer/logger.pmline > 738. > dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.rpm' > > 1 module(s): > instsetoo_native > > > any advice ? > > > Yes, can you try this patch? >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=82021&action=diff >>> >>> I will commit this patch later this day unless I hear that it does not >>> work (no, this not meant as a thread :-) >>> >>> I will try the patch a bit later today. >> >> Alternatively, or additionally, can you tell me how you build? The >>> offending code is not triggered by our build bot builds nor by my local >>> builds. It is good that you found this, I would like to be able to >>> reproduce it. >>> >>> Environment: Ubuntu 12.04 (server) standard installation >> ./configure --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk \ >> --with-dmake-url= >> http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 \ >> --with-epm-url= >> http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \ >> --enable-verbose \ >> --enable-category-b \ >> --enable-opengl \ >> --enable-dbus \ >> --enable-gstreamer \ >> --enable-bundled-dictionaries \ >> --with-lang="da en-US es" \ >> --with-package-format="rpm deb" \ >> --with-vendor="jani local build" >> >> >> I hope that helps. As you know I build very often, and this problem came >> with the latest "svn up" on trunk. >> > > Interesting. I would have thought the relevant changes were active for a > while now. > Anyway, do you use the --with-packager-list= option when you call > configure? > I expect that to trigger the build breaker. > Not so interesting, your comment made me go back through the log files. The configure above is my standard configure, but I have been using --with-packager-list the last period to test a couple of things. > > > >> thanks in advance for your patch. >> > > I break it, I fix it. > thx. rgds jan I. > > > Regards, > Andre > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
review granted: [Bug 113059] DOCX:, each comment include the text of all comments in the imported document : [Attachment 79966] Sample patch
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann has granted review: Bug 113059: DOCX:, each comment include the text of all comments in the imported document https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=113059 Attachment 79966: Sample patch https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=79966&action=edit --- Additional Comments from Oliver-Rainer Wittmann proposed patch looks good. I will apply it on branch ooxml-osba regarding my work on annotations/comments on text ranges. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice website
hello. I tried to save something and it said openoffice crashed and doc’s will be saved. I restarted my comp b/c the windows saying start recovery, then it is recovered push okay. I said ok and the windows keep coming up and wont stop. I tried to delete the page I was saving and it wont let me, saying it is open & to close it!!! help please! thanx, carol Sent from Windows Mail
Re: 80 million downloads
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > Has anyone offered to put AOO into the Ubuntu software centre as a trusted > package automatically available? If not and there was no refusal to > cooperate I don;t see how you can say Ubuntu truncates the freedom of the > user. Anyone is free to do with Ubuntu the same things as with any other > distro, as with all distros, somethings are easier to implement for > non-geeks than others. I should think Ubuntu scores pretty highly on that > score as it probably has more non-geek users than any other. > Not that I recall...we have volunteers working on a Fedora effort. Maybe we need an "Announcement" for this? @Andrea re the porting info...this is not added to any of our normal installation areas --- I'll add it it to some of the "normal" installation areas. > > On 2 December 2013 03:20, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > > > Hi Glenn, > > > > On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag < > > glennharveyliwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with > > > AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice? > > > > LibreOffice. > > The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the > > subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it > > hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command > > line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache > > OpenOffice. > > > > It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with > > instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the > > download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu > > there. > > > > I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being > > the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom > of > > the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community > > that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more > > ironic. > > > > louis > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > > > >> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with > > it - > > >> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I > > suggest > > >> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its > really > > up > > >> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that > > >> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it > > to > > >> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install > > applications > > >> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends > on > > >> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like > > ours > > >> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO. > > >> > > >> > > >> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk wrote: > > >>> > > Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user > to > > install anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I > > switched to Linux, I can assure you. > > >>> > > >>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other > > LInuxes, > > >> I > > >>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've > used; > > >> and > > >>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease > of > > >> OS > > >>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you > > can > > >>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.) > > > > > > > (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, > for > > a > > >>> lot > > > of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward > > > non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.) > > > > > > And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* > > Tell > > >>> us > > > about it :-). > > > > > > > I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use > Ubuntu > > >>> and > > likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of > > >>> restrictions > > and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another. > > >>> > > >>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because > it's > > >>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. > > Whereas > > >> I > > >>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arbitrary in layout > and > > >>> operation; and though one can finally *get* that its logic is about > > >>> property (MY MY MY things), still, one must then deal with mairzy > doats > > >> and > > >>> dozy doats and liddle lazy divey and not mares and does and lambs > > >> scarfing > > >>> oats & ivy.) > > >>> > > >>> louis > > >>> - > > >>> To u
AOO and Ohloh stats
You've probably seen various social media posts, blogs, articles, etc., purporting to compare AOO and LO via commit statistics. If you poke a little you see that these are almost always derived from Ohloh. You can see our numbers here: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice It is important to keep in mind what exactly Ohloh is doing. They are looking at our Subversion repository, at the source and website trunks, and tracking the commits made there. But we have done our most-significant code in branches, not in the trunk. All of the Sidebar work was done in a branch, all of the IAccesible2 work was done in branch and all of the 4.0.1 work was done in a branch. That's how we do use Subversion: develop new features in a branch and merge to the trunk when stable. So how does Ohloh treat this approach to version control? As an example, look at how the IAccesible2 addition was treated: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/commits/303139831 As you can see, Ohloh sees this as a single commit. Yes, 601 files were modified, but it still shows up as only a single commit, because Ohloh only sees the merge. It does not see the actually underlying development activity. A similar thing happened with the Sidebar feature as well. The development effort was accounted for as a single commit. LO, on the other hand, uses a different approach with git, and every single one of their commits are registered by Ohloh, even if it is a one-line change. So comparing AOO and LO Ohloh stats is not a valid comparison. Of course, this is not to blame Ohloh. The fault is not in their service. The fault lies with those who take such numbers and do false comparisons. This is intellectually dishonest and I think we should point this out wherever we see it. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO and Ohloh stats
Top posting. Thanks for this explanation! It will indeed help to temper some of the claims about these numbers. Hagar Le 02/12/2013 19:24, Rob Weir a écrit : You've probably seen various social media posts, blogs, articles, etc., purporting to compare AOO and LO via commit statistics. If you poke a little you see that these are almost always derived from Ohloh. You can see our numbers here: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice It is important to keep in mind what exactly Ohloh is doing. They are looking at our Subversion repository, at the source and website trunks, and tracking the commits made there. But we have done our most-significant code in branches, not in the trunk. All of the Sidebar work was done in a branch, all of the IAccesible2 work was done in branch and all of the 4.0.1 work was done in a branch. That's how we do use Subversion: develop new features in a branch and merge to the trunk when stable. So how does Ohloh treat this approach to version control? As an example, look at how the IAccesible2 addition was treated: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/commits/303139831 As you can see, Ohloh sees this as a single commit. Yes, 601 files were modified, but it still shows up as only a single commit, because Ohloh only sees the merge. It does not see the actually underlying development activity. A similar thing happened with the Sidebar feature as well. The development effort was accounted for as a single commit. LO, on the other hand, uses a different approach with git, and every single one of their commits are registered by Ohloh, even if it is a one-line change. So comparing AOO and LO Ohloh stats is not a valid comparison. Of course, this is not to blame Ohloh. The fault is not in their service. The fault lies with those who take such numbers and do false comparisons. This is intellectually dishonest and I think we should point this out wherever we see it. Regards, -Rob - 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: 80 million downloads
Am 12/02/2013 08:54 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:22, Ian Lynch wrote: We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. This is not a new thing and I've asked that we provide clear clear instructions to naive users (like, oh, me) about how to change it without going geek. There's a step-by-step guide at http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ ; isn't it easy enough? Does it need more visibility? when I would search for install instructions, then I won't expect a different webpage than for install instructions: https://www.google.de/search?q=apache+openoffice+install The first hit wins. ;-) BTW: https://www.google.de/search?q=apache+openoffice+install+ubuntu This gives an interesting first hit. Maybe someone with Ubuntu could test this and can report the results (is it working?, is it easy?, compatible for non-geeks?, etc.). Finally, to add this link additionally to the porting webpage due to Debian is OK but must not be the only one. Ciao Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 80 million downloads
Regarding notifying Canonical... I'd be happy to do so, as I'm sure others would. Just need to get a single assignee for it. I'd be curious to hear why they wouldn't include AOO as a trusted package, if they did decline the offer. louis On 2 December 2013 13:15, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > >> Has anyone offered to put AOO into the Ubuntu software centre as a trusted >> package automatically available? If not and there was no refusal to >> cooperate I don;t see how you can say Ubuntu truncates the freedom of the >> user. Anyone is free to do with Ubuntu the same things as with any other >> distro, as with all distros, somethings are easier to implement for >> non-geeks than others. I should think Ubuntu scores pretty highly on that >> score as it probably has more non-geek users than any other. >> > > Not that I recall...we have volunteers working on a Fedora effort. > > Maybe we need an "Announcement" for this? > > @Andrea re the porting info...this is not added to any of our normal > installation areas --- I'll add it it to some of the "normal" installation > areas. > > >> >> On 2 December 2013 03:20, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> >> > Hi Glenn, >> > >> > On 01-Dec-2013, at 19:45, Glenn Harvey Liwanag < >> > glennharveyliwa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Pardon for not reading the whole thread, but is Ubuntu not shipped with >> > > AOO? Last time I installed Ubuntu, it had AOO. Or was it LibreOffice? >> > >> > LibreOffice. >> > The issue here, and this is by no means within the proper scope of the >> > subject line (sigh), is that Ubuntu (or should I say, Canonical) makes it >> > hard for naive users (that is, those who are not inclined to use command >> > line interfaces) to replace the LibreOffice default offering with Apache >> > OpenOffice. >> > >> > It is by no means impossible and we've replied on several occasions with >> > instructions how to do this, but these, afaik, are not posted to the >> > download page, nor is the information about what is delivered with Ubuntu >> > there. >> > >> > I have no real—well, okay, I do, a little—problem with LibreOffice being >> > the default. I have a problem with any OS that so truncates the freedom >> of >> > the user as Ubuntu does, and yet claims to work with and for a community >> > that supposedly contributes to instituting freedom, not something more >> > ironic. >> > >> > louis >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: >> > > >> > >> We use Ubuntu throughout the company and don't have any problems with >> > it - >> > >> well certainly no more than Windows and Apple Users seem to have. I >> > suggest >> > >> if AOO is difficult to install in Ubuntu for a non-developer its >> really >> > up >> > >> to those that have the skills and knowledge to change that..well that >> > >> assumes that the project isn't just giving up on Ubuntu and leaving it >> > to >> > >> LO. I have to say AOO is one of the most difficult to install >> > applications >> > >> on Ubuntu. We can blame Ubuntu or Canonical or we can fix it. Depends >> on >> > >> whether the Ubuntu market is seen as important because companies like >> > ours >> > >> are not going to switch platforms just to run AOO. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 1 December 2013 23:25, Louis Suárez-Potts >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> On 01-Dec-2013, at 18:03, Kay Schenk wrote: >> > >>> >> > Some distros make it very difficult for the typical Linux end user >> to >> > install anything NOT in the distro's repository. This is NOT why I >> > switched to Linux, I can assure you. >> > >>> >> > >>> It's only—only—been my experience with Ubuntu. With *all* other >> > LInuxes, >> > >> I >> > >>> get joy. (I've not used all there are, I refer just to those I've >> used; >> > >> and >> > >>> at that, via my virtualized environment. Ubuntu pretends to the ease >> of >> > >> OS >> > >>> X but is actually more—!!—tight with proprietary constraints, if you >> > can >> > >>> imagine that: if it don't come from Canonical, it ain't canonical.) >> > >> > >> > > (At any rate, that's what I would mean. Given the choice of OSs, >> for >> > a >> > >>> lot >> > > of stuff I tend toward Linux. It's easier. But I tend then toward >> > > non-Canonical Linuxes. Even easier.) >> > > >> > > And try installing OOo in the latest Ubuntu *as a non-developer.* >> > Tell >> > >>> us >> > > about it :-). >> > > >> > >> > I have only used one Linux distro since I started. I do not use >> Ubuntu >> > >>> and >> > likely never will. I got away from MS because of all kinds of >> > >>> restrictions >> > and I don't need to trade one environment like that for another. >> > >>> >> > >>> Quite. And I love Linux (and also, for that matter, OS X) because >> it's >> > >>> logical in its layout and thus easy to navigate, work with, use. >> > Whereas >> > >> I >> > >>> dislike MSFT's Windows because it is seemingly arb
Re: AOO and Ohloh stats
On 2 December 2013 13:24, Rob Weir wrote: > Of course, this is not to blame Ohloh. The fault is not in their > service. The fault lies with those who take such numbers and do false > comparisons. This is intellectually dishonest and I think we should > point this out wherever we see it. > > Regards, > > -Rob Rob, would you object if I quoted your post in toto on my blog, ooo-speak.blogspot.com? cheers, Louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Arrow heads with hole
On 26/11/2013 Regina Henschel wrote: I have expanded the standard.soe with some arrow heads with hole. The file is attached to https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123758. If you like them, we can consider to use this palette as default. I added a screenshot to the issue for clearer comparison. The new styles are nice and it would be good to have them in 4.1. In some cases, in the preview, I see the main line of the arrow going (seemingly) too far within the arrow head, see http://imagebin.org/280257 for an example. Is this wanted? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper
Herbert, We are having trouble interpreting the boost preprocessor macros. We are receiving the following output when compiling sal/osl/all. I've attached the output as a pdf. Raymond -Original Message- From: Herbert Duerr [mailto:h...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:14 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Steele, Raymond; Meffe, David K Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper Hi Raymond, On 21.11.2013 22:27, Steele, Raymond wrote: > Forget about my last report. We started over and figured out that an > environment variable was causing the dmake issues. Once we cleared the > environment of variables related to our other projects, the build took off. > We will have to figure out what it was later. Thanks for debugging and solving that problem! The current way of configure writing a file for setting environments variables is too fragile. As can be seen in your example if configure is run in an environment that is already "contaminated" with such env vars then unnecessary causes of troubles exist. IMHO build and config settings should be done via e.g. Makefile.config that should be created by configure. This config result should then be included by the other Makefiles. So if in doubt better use a fresh shell before running configure. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper
Herbert, Let me know if you did not get the attachment. -Original Message- From: Steele, Raymond Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 3:29 PM To: 'Herbert Duerr'; dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Meffe, David K Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper Herbert, We are having trouble interpreting the boost preprocessor macros. We are receiving the following output when compiling sal/osl/all. I've attached the output as a pdf. Raymond -Original Message- From: Herbert Duerr [mailto:h...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:14 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Steele, Raymond; Meffe, David K Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper Hi Raymond, On 21.11.2013 22:27, Steele, Raymond wrote: > Forget about my last report. We started over and figured out that an > environment variable was causing the dmake issues. Once we cleared the > environment of variables related to our other projects, the build took off. > We will have to figure out what it was later. Thanks for debugging and solving that problem! The current way of configure writing a file for setting environments variables is too fragile. As can be seen in your example if configure is run in an environment that is already "contaminated" with such env vars then unnecessary causes of troubles exist. IMHO build and config settings should be done via e.g. Makefile.config that should be created by configure. This config result should then be included by the other Makefiles. So if in doubt better use a fresh shell before running configure. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Arrow heads with hole
Hi Andrea, Andrea Pescetti schrieb: On 26/11/2013 Regina Henschel wrote: I have expanded the standard.soe with some arrow heads with hole. The file is attached to https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123758. If you like them, we can consider to use this palette as default. I added a screenshot to the issue for clearer comparison. The new styles are nice and it would be good to have them in 4.1. In some cases, in the preview, I see the main line of the arrow going (seemingly) too far within the arrow head, see http://imagebin.org/280257 for an example. Is this wanted? No, that is not wanted. I will explain the problem in more detail: If you stop the line at the very place where the arrow head starts, you get a visible gap between the "square 45°" and the line itself for fat lines (and same for circle or any peak shape). Therefore an overlap was introduced. For the filled arrow heads, it does not matter whether the line is drawn a little bit longer. For the arrow heads with hole you have to find a compromise between showing a gap at the outer part and showing a little bit line in the hole. Currently the amount by which the line is drawn longer does not depend on the kind of arrow head, but on the length of the arrow head. It is in file polygonprimitive2d.cxx in method PolygonStrokeArrowPrimitive2D::create2DDecomposition around line#547 the statement "fStart *= 0.8;" In LO I have changed that to "fStartOverlap = getStart().getWidth() / 15.0;", so that it depends on the width of the arrow head, which also determines the 'stroke' width in the non-filled arrow heads. It is a compromise too. (It is not really a 'stroke', but the area between two combined paths.) We could copy that in AOO. But perhaps someone has a better idea? Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO and Ohloh stats
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Top posting. > Thanks for this explanation! > It will indeed help to temper some of the claims about these numbers. > > Hagar > Indeed, thank you! Who knew? > > > Le 02/12/2013 19:24, Rob Weir a écrit : > > > You've probably seen various social media posts, blogs, articles, >> etc., purporting to compare AOO and LO via commit statistics. If you >> poke a little you see that these are almost always derived from Ohloh. >> You can see our numbers here: >> >> https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice >> >> It is important to keep in mind what exactly Ohloh is doing. They are >> looking at our Subversion repository, at the source and website >> trunks, and tracking the commits made there. But we have done our >> most-significant code in branches, not in the trunk. All of the >> Sidebar work was done in a branch, all of the IAccesible2 work was >> done in branch and all of the 4.0.1 work was done in a branch. That's >> how we do use Subversion: develop new features in a branch and merge >> to the trunk when stable. >> >> So how does Ohloh treat this approach to version control? As an >> example, look at how the IAccesible2 addition was treated: >> >> https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/commits/303139831 >> >> As you can see, Ohloh sees this as a single commit. Yes, 601 files >> were modified, but it still shows up as only a single commit, because >> Ohloh only sees the merge. It does not see the actually underlying >> development activity. >> >> A similar thing happened with the Sidebar feature as well. The >> development effort was accounted for as a single commit. >> >> LO, on the other hand, uses a different approach with git, and every >> single one of their commits are registered by Ohloh, even if it is a >> one-line change. So comparing AOO and LO Ohloh stats is not a valid >> comparison. >> >> Of course, this is not to blame Ohloh. The fault is not in their >> service. The fault lies with those who take such numbers and do false >> comparisons. This is intellectually dishonest and I think we should >> point this out wherever we see it. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >> - >> 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 > > -- - MzK "Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time, for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect." -- James Mason
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steele, Raymond wrote: > Herbert, > > Let me know if you did not get the attachment. > > -Original Message- From: Steele, Raymond Sent: Monday, > December 02, 2013 3:29 PM To: 'Herbert Duerr'; > dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Meffe, David K Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: > Re: Building comphelper > > Herbert, > > We are having trouble interpreting the boost preprocessor macros. > We are receiving the following output when compiling sal/osl/all. > I've attached the output as a pdf. > > Raymond > > > -Original Message- From: Herbert Duerr > [mailto:h...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:14 AM To: > dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Steele, Raymond; Meffe, David K > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Building comphelper > > Hi Raymond, > > On 21.11.2013 22:27, Steele, Raymond wrote: >> Forget about my last report. We started over and figured out that >> an environment variable was causing the dmake issues. Once we >> cleared the environment of variables related to our other >> projects, the build took off. We will have to figure out what it >> was later. > > Thanks for debugging and solving that problem! > > The current way of configure writing a file for setting > environments variables is too fragile. As can be seen in your > example if configure is run in an environment that is already > "contaminated" with such env vars then unnecessary causes of > troubles exist. > > IMHO build and config settings should be done via e.g. > Makefile.config that should be created by configure. This config > result should then be included by the other Makefiles. > > So if in doubt better use a fresh shell before running configure. > > Herbert > Raymond; The list strips most attachments. The best method to share would be to put it on-line with a link to it in separate reply to the list. Regards Keith -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSnTeqAAoJEH0fu5UhGmBCL1IH/jfVz8UYC6Z5FEHqN6NYlDHa 27Jpcc2QPWk20CA5Wb7Psj7W6EWPrAOCx5lBTNlDiMojxUYjswCBMP09kA4BiyCE fYZXK1tiLzbs2/YlYvNjf7RCWfE//dIpXMAoe0L17bSIR7dEPFD8b9ItrebD780e /wa6FN0DRVZ4PbzWXm3opKoDMwIvrjofTIffRvz3WJoJO364iY7S09NSGI6cyc7Z s+TdM/tcJpw0tr2XozgDPJGcReY2C2gechiZ5ox1YDHqXMjuk9MOR8xqcijLnTys rqL+SzIovTgBfb/IhAQARCq774B5vn4vM8qk7A9yrhugvCQ4MhP89qbmTjerZY8= =RfR3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Arrow heads with hole
On 12/2/13 11:45 PM, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > Andrea Pescetti schrieb: >> On 26/11/2013 Regina Henschel wrote: >>> I have expanded the standard.soe with some arrow heads with hole. The >>> file is attached to >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123758. >>> If you like them, we can consider to use this palette as default. >> >> I added a screenshot to the issue for clearer comparison. The new styles >> are nice and it would be good to have them in 4.1. >> >> In some cases, in the preview, I see the main line of the arrow going >> (seemingly) too far within the arrow head, see >> http://imagebin.org/280257 for an example. Is this wanted? > > No, that is not wanted. I will explain the problem in more detail: > > If you stop the line at the very place where the arrow head starts, you > get a visible gap between the "square 45°" and the line itself for fat > lines (and same for circle or any peak shape). Therefore an overlap was > introduced. For the filled arrow heads, it does not matter whether the > line is drawn a little bit longer. > > For the arrow heads with hole you have to find a compromise between > showing a gap at the outer part and showing a little bit line in the hole. > > Currently the amount by which the line is drawn longer does not depend > on the kind of arrow head, but on the length of the arrow head. It is in > file polygonprimitive2d.cxx in method > PolygonStrokeArrowPrimitive2D::create2DDecomposition around line#547 the > statement "fStart *= 0.8;" > In LO I have changed that to "fStartOverlap = getStart().getWidth() / > 15.0;", so that it depends on the width of the arrow head, which also > determines the 'stroke' width in the non-filled arrow heads. It is a > compromise too. (It is not really a 'stroke', but the area between two > combined paths.) > > We could copy that in AOO. But perhaps someone has a better idea? perhaps Armin our graphic guru has a further idea otherwise I would suggest you add this code a change and the new palette. I like it Juergen > > Kind regards > Regina > > > > - > 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 and Ohloh stats
On 02.12.2013 19:24, Rob Weir wrote: You've probably seen various social media posts, blogs, articles, etc., purporting to compare AOO and LO via commit statistics. If you poke a little you see that these are almost always derived from Ohloh. You can see our numbers here: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice It is important to keep in mind what exactly Ohloh is doing. They are looking at our Subversion repository, at the source and website trunks, and tracking the commits made there. But we have done our most-significant code in branches, not in the trunk. All of the Sidebar work was done in a branch, all of the IAccesible2 work was done in branch and all of the 4.0.1 work was done in a branch. That's how we do use Subversion: develop new features in a branch and merge to the trunk when stable. So how does Ohloh treat this approach to version control? As an example, look at how the IAccesible2 addition was treated: https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/commits/303139831 As you can see, Ohloh sees this as a single commit. Yes, 601 files were modified, but it still shows up as only a single commit, because Ohloh only sees the merge. It does not see the actually underlying development activity. A similar thing happened with the Sidebar feature as well. The development effort was accounted for as a single commit. LO, on the other hand, uses a different approach with git, and every single one of their commits are registered by Ohloh, even if it is a one-line change. So comparing AOO and LO Ohloh stats is not a valid comparison. Of course, this is not to blame Ohloh. The fault is not in their service. The fault lies with those who take such numbers and do false comparisons. This is intellectually dishonest and I think we should point this out wherever we see it. I am a developer and if I had to rate a bug fix or feature implementation solely on the number of added or modified lines of code then the smaller number would win. Why would anybody think that more changes lead to better code? Maybe we should go the other way and identify problem hot spots in our code when there are more than a certain number of changes. -Andre Regards, -Rob - 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
