Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
Bjoern Michaelsen píše v St 21. 12. 2011 v 21:31 +0100: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates. Can we tag the beta0 as 3.4.99.0 in addition to 3.5.0.0 for now? That shouldnt hurt. If someone asks about the 3.5.0.0 tag, we could tell them to just ignore it without lengthy discussions. Well, people could still ask why our rcs start at 1, while our minors and majors start at 0 and we _could_ answer that with tradition as OOo did so too. That would not be the whole story as 3.X.X_m0 was the branchoff point at OOo (quite a sensible convention), in which case our 3.5.0.0 is slightly of the mark. IMHO, the right explanation is that .0.1 is the first release candidate for the the initial release and .1.1 is the first release candidate for the first bug fix release. Anyway: Could we at least please double-tag 3.5.0.0 as 3.4.99.0? done I am sorry for the troubles. Best Regards. Petr ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates. Can we tag the beta0 as 3.4.99.0 in addition to 3.5.0.0 for now? That shouldnt hurt. As we wont have a 3.5.0 rc0 we could silently leave the 3.5.0.0 tag where it is, but would never need to tell anyone about it anymore. Having: 3.5.0beta0 = 3.4.99.0 3.5.0beta1 = 3.4.99.1 3.5.0rc0 = nonexistant, published rcs start at 1 3.5.0rc1 = 3.5.0.1 If someone asks about the 3.5.0.0 tag, we could tell them to just ignore it without lengthy discussions. Well, people could still ask why our rcs start at 1, while our minors and majors start at 0 and we _could_ answer that with tradition as OOo did so too. That would not be the whole story as 3.X.X_m0 was the branchoff point at OOo (quite a sensible convention), in which case our 3.5.0.0 is slightly of the mark. Anyway: Could we at least please double-tag 3.5.0.0 as 3.4.99.0? Best, Bjoern ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
2011/12/14 Andreas Radke a.ra...@arcor.de: any suggestions welcome. the only difference to beta0 is the changed internal libvisio src bump. tried autoconf/autoreconf and make -j1 install without luck :( -Andy It is not failure during build, but during install, so configure and make can have any parallelism. Anyway gentoo bug for this issue is here [1]. The problem as I managed to hit it once is that NO subdirs are created in sdk directory - all copying fails because it does not have the place where it wants to put the files. Cheers Tom [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394599 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:12:33PM +0100, Andreas Radke a.ra...@arcor.de wrote: Are you sure the new tarballs are fixed? I've tried the new .xz ones and I'm still getting the same error. I tried to build these: $ sha1sum *.bz2 b116c7dade3d0fb9bf73362e728dbb1b04068acb libreoffice-binfilter-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2 6534c81c0fd86813735896cd92b738a60d27323f libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2 b5efc018319d630b776be8427b601473d15c7559 libreoffice-help-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2 e38d3d47f0a33b540f1b962ce8f1dc9ec8d84f14 libreoffice-translations-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2 It succeeded without any problems. Build script at http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/people/vmiklos/lotesting/source/xapps/libreoffice/FrugalBuild, in case that would help you. pgpFn5se2VYWQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 18:12 +0100: Am Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:30:01 +0100 schrieb Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz: Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 05:14 +0100: I'm running into this new build issue: Sigh, I have created the source tarballs from master instead of the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag. Could you please dowload the updated tarballs from http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ and try the build once again? Are you sure the new tarballs are fixed? I've tried the new .xz ones and I'm still getting the same error. They should be fine. Well, Rene pointed out that there is outdated configure stuff. It seems that the script lo-pack-lources did not run autoreconf. You might try to run it to refresh the files. Any idea? Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43 ... checking environment variables ... rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice//logging/': Directory not empty *** Successful packaging process! *** Running SDK installer Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43 ... checking environment variables ... rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice_SDK//logging/': Directory not empty Can't copy file: /tmp/ooopackaging/i_243901323795664/unxlngx6.pro/LibreOffice_SDK//zip/en-US/00/odkcommon_zip/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl - /build/src/fakeinstall/usr/lib/libreoffice/sdk/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl No such file or directory at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/worker.pm line 737. Failed to install: at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/ooinstall line 129. make[1]: *** [install] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1' make: *** [source-env-and-recurse] Error 2 Tomas saw something similar on Gentoo as well. It might be a dependency problem. Does it help you to run the installation without any parallelism? Also I would try to remove /tmp/ooopackaging and /tmp/LibreOffice_SDK and similar directories to make sure that there is not mess from the past. Just to be sure. Do you have enough free space in /tmp? Otherwise, I havn't seen it, so it is had for me to debug it :-( Best Regards, Petr ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
Am Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:59:57 +0100 schrieb Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz: Well, Rene pointed out that there is outdated configure stuff. It seems that the script lo-pack-lources did not run autoreconf. You might try to run it to refresh the files. Tomas saw something similar on Gentoo as well. It might be a dependency problem. Does it help you to run the installation without any parallelism? no luck. Also I would try to remove /tmp/ooopackaging and /tmp/LibreOffice_SDK and similar directories to make sure that there is not mess from the past. build is done in a clean chroot each time. shouldn't be a problem. the beta0 built fine here. Just to be sure. Do you have enough free space in /tmp? sure. just rechecked it. Otherwise, I havn't seen it, so it is had for me to debug it :-( Best Regards, Petr any suggestions welcome. the only difference to beta0 is the changed internal libvisio src bump. tried autoconf/autoreconf and make -j1 install without luck :( -Andy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 05:14 +0100: I'm running into this new build issue: Sigh, I have created the source tarballs from master instead of the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag. Could you please dowload the updated tarballs from http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ and try the build once again? I am really sorry for the inconvenience. It happened because beta0 was made from master and I forgot to update my release step notes for the libreoffice-3-5 branch and ran the command in master git clone. Best Regards, Petr ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
Am Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:30:01 +0100 schrieb Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz: Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 05:14 +0100: I'm running into this new build issue: Sigh, I have created the source tarballs from master instead of the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag. Could you please dowload the updated tarballs from http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ and try the build once again? Are you sure the new tarballs are fixed? I've tried the new .xz ones and I'm still getting the same error. Any idea? Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43 ... checking environment variables ... rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice//logging/': Directory not empty *** Successful packaging process! *** Running SDK installer Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43 ... checking environment variables ... rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice_SDK//logging/': Directory not empty Can't copy file: /tmp/ooopackaging/i_243901323795664/unxlngx6.pro/LibreOffice_SDK//zip/en-US/00/odkcommon_zip/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl - /build/src/fakeinstall/usr/lib/libreoffice/sdk/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl No such file or directory at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/worker.pm line 737. Failed to install: at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/ooinstall line 129. make[1]: *** [install] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1' make: *** [source-env-and-recurse] Error 2 -Andy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
At 12:34pm -0500 Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Petr Mladek wrote: Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates. ./g fetch --tags ./g checkout -b tag-libreoffice-3.4.99.1 libreoffice-3.4.99.1 I hope this isn't a silly question: if I'm trying to stay at the bleeding edge of the 3.5 branch, should I switch from libreoffice-3-5 to this new branch? With a git pull from an hour ago, this is the branch that I'm currently building: $ git branch * libreoffice-3-5 master Thanks, Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
Kevin Hunter píše v Po 12. 12. 2011 v 12:52 -0500: At 12:34pm -0500 Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Petr Mladek wrote: Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates. ./g fetch --tags ./g checkout -b tag-libreoffice-3.4.99.1 libreoffice-3.4.99.1 I hope this isn't a silly question: if I'm trying to stay at the bleeding edge of the 3.5 branch, should I switch from libreoffice-3-5 to this new branch? No, in this case, just ignore the tag. The tag is not a real branch. It is a static mark. It describes a status of the libreoffice-3-5 branch where we do the beta1 build. All additional fixes will go to the libreoffice-3-5 branch. With a git pull from an hour ago, this is the branch that I'm currently building: $ git branch * libreoffice-3-5 master Looks good. Please, also make sure that the other repositories are on this branch. I do the following ./g branch | grep \* Best Regards, Petr ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
At 1:24pm -0500 Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Petr Mladek wrote: Looks good. Please, also make sure that the other repositories are on this branch. I do the following ./g branch | grep \* :-) They are; no worries/ But good eye for git vs ./g! Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Hi, there have been created the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag for 3.5.0-beta1 release. The corresponding official builds will be available within 4 days or so. Mac OSX x86 build uploading now at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/mac/x86/ ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)
I'm running into this new build issue: [ build ALL ] top level modules: bootstrap src.downloaded ooo [ build ALL ] loaded modules: ooo LibreOffice build successfully finished. To install, issue: make install Developers might prefer this way: make dev-install -o build To run smoketest, issue: make check For crosscompiles, please consult README.cross how to install it. make[1]: Entering directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1' echo Installing in /usr/lib/libreoffice... \ ooinstall /usr/lib/libreoffice \ echo \ echo Installation finished, you can now execute: \ echo /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice Installing in /usr/lib/libreoffice... Running LibreOffice installer Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43 ... checking environment variables ... rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice//logging/': Directory not empty *** Successful packaging process! *** Running SDK installer Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43 ... checking environment variables ... rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice_SDK//logging/': Directory not empty Can't copy file: /tmp/ooopackaging/i_58951323727025/unxlngx6.pro/LibreOffice_SDK//zip/en-US/00/odkcommon_zip/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl - /build/src/fakeinstall/usr/lib/libreoffice/sdk/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl No such file or directory at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/worker.pm line 711. Failed to install: at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/ooinstall line 129. make[1]: *** [install] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1' make: *** [source-env-and-recurse] Error 2 ESC[1mESC[31m== ERROR:ESC[mESC[1m A failure occurred in build().ESC[m ESC[1mAborting...ESC[m Any idea? -Andy ArchLinux ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
