Re: Please do not work at Pootle atm
Hi Raphael, On 02.03.2012 20:34, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi at all No panic, I will make this night a new initial import. The reason is, that we are not sure if the data from the old pootle server are compleet. So we want to be sure, and so I will import the data from the SDF. I will import only the language wich we release for the moment. I hope, i can do this work util tomorrow I am a bit confused. SDF seems to imply the current data in the extras/l10n module. For at least one language (zn-TW) we know that the data from the old pootle server is more up-to-date. How can we handle that? -Andre Then we can realy start. Greetings Raphael
[BUILD]: propose next developer snapshot based on 1296433
Hi, I would like to propose that we prepare the next set of dev snapshots based on the revision r1296933, which correspond to our last changed revision r1296433. The linux buildbot has successfully build this revision and I think we can use it for the next snapshot builds. The planned RC candidate will be postponed to next week because of the show stopper issues we have found. I would like to propose also that we provide normal full install sets instead of dev builds that we can test upgrade installations as well as system integration. Last week I haven't proposed the build to the IPMC but will do it this week for a first review if the formal requirements for an Apache release are ok or if there are bigger issues. The builds will be made available again under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots Juergen
Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test
On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote: Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed (e..g, r1293550) then the install was a success. Please send a short note to theooo-...@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have already been attempted and which have not. Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8 Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3 Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy. Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed individual extensions later today. Hi Larry, unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes. Sorry Juergen All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later.
Re: [BZ] Disable the release blocker flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)
On 3/3/12 12:02 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 03/02/2012 11:30 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/02/2012 10:49 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks, new releases, etc.) -and- To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ. Is it possible to disable the release blocker flag for everyone's use? When only a few people can set the flag to + then we can discuss first on the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to +. Right now only those in the relman group can +grant or -deny the release blocker flag. There are only 8 people in that group right now. OK, then it was maybe just a subjective feeling that the flag was more stressed than necessary in the last few days/weeks. Or there is at least a difference between the ? and the + / - status. Many of us are working together for the first time. So it is likely that we don't even all agree on what a release blocker means. If we agreed on criteria, then I think there would be fewer issues like this. But maybe having these discussions is how we converge on an understanding of what a blocking issue is? Then there is short way out: ;-) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Stopper When we can agree on these criteria, the sorting of release blocker will be easier and faster. Looks like reasonable criteria to me. BTW - the part under How to promote/nominate a Stopper issue will need to be rewritten. done, at least improved to cover the current procedure Juergen Regards, Dave Marcus Anyone in the canconfirm group is able to request this flag. Not everyone is a member of canconfirm. There are only 559 members, mainly those who had elevated permissions in the legacy BZ instance. It also includes everyone with an Apache email address. So I think we're doing what you are suggesting. We're discussing the bugs where someone has requested release blocker status, and then decided whether to grant or deny that status. What do you think? Discuss now, discuss later, it is all the same thing, right? -Rob Marcus Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.
Re: Arabic localization
This is really helpful - thanks. For a little background I have some contacts in Qatar who are particular interested in seeing an Arabic release. They themselves are not technical so they want to make contact with people who can do the work. If anyone on this list is interested please contact me offlist. Ross On 23 February 2012 16:54, Joost Andrae joost.and...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, one thing is localization (l10n) the other is internationalization (i18n). I once started a Wiki page http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Arabization_efforts to collect issue IDs regarding changes that have to be done to enhance the application's capabilities regarding this CTL (complex text layout) script. From my knowledge most changes will enhance Hebrew script as well. There has been some community around Ossama Khayat from arabeyes.org who's been working on Linux CTL and localization. Unfortunately their localization project http://projects.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=OpenOffice doesn't seem to be active anymore since 2006. There were others like Debian developer Lior Kaplan and Alan Yaniger from Israel. As far as I remember Oracle did care about Arabic UI localization but AFAIK helpcontent wasn't translated. I believe the issue list needs some verification but I think it's still a good starting point for experienced developers to work on BIDI (bi-directional support), CTL and RTL (right to left) script languages like Arabic. Am 23.02.2012 11:48, schrieb Ross Gardler: I'm aware that there is am Arabic localization pack for OpenOffice, is there anyone here involved with that effort? Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. Kind regards, Joost -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [BUILD]: propose next developer snapshot based on 1296433
Hi, Am 05.03.2012 09:57, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: The builds will be made available again under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots Is it possible to post here if they are really available. Thanks Josef -- PGP Schlüssel: 311D1055 http://keyserver.pgp.com
Re: Building with system ICU
Hi Pedro, ICU was the first real hairy monster I found when I started looking at the OpenOffice code here the same :-( can you check if vcl builds for you with --system-icu? thanks -- Bye, Yuri Dario /* * OS/2 open source software * http://web.os2power.com/yuri * http://www.netlabs.org */
Re: [BUILD] Re: A small problem with compiling from source
Thank you!! But It still doesn't work! I tried to use ''make'', but it didn't work. What is this command - build? Where did it take? 04.03.2012, 08:58, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com: On 3/3/2012 1:52 PM, Очиров Николай wrote: Hi! I have no experience building openoffice, and I have a problem. I followed these instructions http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide for Ubuntu 11.04, but used 11.10. Currently, it is easiest to get the build to run on Ubuntu 10.04. There are various issues that you will run into on Ubuntu 11.04/11.10/12 alpha. Among these issues are the need to switch to /usr/bin/ld to point to ld.gold. Your easiest way to get the build running is to build up a machine (or vm) with Ubuntu 10.04 with the following additional packages: sudo apt-get install g++ gcc bison flex libarchive-zip-perl libcups2-dev libpam0g-dev openjdk-6-jdk gperf libfreetype6-dev libxaw7-dev libfontconfig1-dev libxrandr-dev patch libgconf2-dev libgnomevfs2-dev ant libgtk2.0-dev junit junit4 epm libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-dev librsvg2-dev python-dev subversion autoconf rpm libdbus-glib-1-dev libdbus-glib-1-dev libgl1-mesa-dev libglu1-mesa-dev libglib2.0-dev libidl-dev liborbit2-dev When I run the script ./bootstrap after ./configure with no arguments there is an error: /bootstrap 56: ./configure : permission denied. How to fix it? What is the reason? I was looking for the cause of the internet, but have not found a solution. Your commands for a full build from scratch would look like this: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk ooo cd ooo/main wget -O external/unowinreg/unowinreg.dll http://tools.openoffice.org/unowinreg_prebuild/680/unowinreg.dll autoconf ./configure --enable-verbose --enable-category-b --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2; --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz; ./bootstrap . ./LinuxX86Env.Set.sh cd instsetoo_native build --all --html -P2 -- -P2 If you get that running, then you might try building with more stuff using a config like this: ./configure --enable-verbose --enable-category-b --enable-minimizer --enable-presenter-console --enable-wiki-publisher --enable-open gl --enable-dbus --enable-gstreamer --with-package-format=installed rpm deb --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.code spot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz; --with-lang=ru P.S: Excuse me if I made a mistakes! we all do... My English is bad, very bad, but I'm trying to improve the English skills! your English is much better than my Russian I really hope for your support!
OO_CALC: IDEA on making cell formatting quicker 10 rows
Dear developer Team
i am using OO for some months i am satisfied with it
however
*
IDEA
*
I often modify the cell background color ONLY
of a a single/multiple cell(s) {in context menu CTRL+1}
as i do this i have to select the chosen background color {MOUSE_LMB}
then click the
{OK button}
i think it was quicker if i alternativly could just {MOUSE_DBL_CLICK} on
the chosen color and this would trigger the closure of the context menu
*
END IDEA
*
thank you for your work
regards,
bp
Re: Executing UNO Dispatcher in VBScript doesn't reflect any changes in ODS file
Try adding a Store request: Call UnoObj.executeDispatch(document, .uno:BackgroundColor, , 0, propertyset) oSpreadsheet.Store() oSpreadsheet.Close(True) Close won't do that for you. /tj/ On 3/5/2012 05:10, Subodh Asthana wrote: Executing UNO Dispatcher in VBScript doesn't reflect any changes in ODS file http://stackoverflow.com/q/9562093/264668?sem=2 Following is the code that I wrote to try formatting ODS using VBSript. It runs without any error but it *does not reflect any change* in the ODS file. Dim propertyset(0) Dim arg() Set oServiceManager = CreateObject(com.sun.star.ServiceManager) Set oDesktop = oServiceManager.createInstance(com.sun.star.frame.Desktop) Set UnoObj = oServiceManager.createInstance(com.sun.star.frame.DispatchHelper) sFileName = D:\Untitled 1.ods sFileName = Replace (sFileName, \, /) sURL = file:/// sFileName Set oSpreadsheet = oDesktop.loadComponentFromURL(sURL, _blank, 0, arg)'load existing spreadsheet set oSheet1 = oSpreadsheet.getSheets.getByName( Sheet1 ) set document = oSpreadsheet.CurrentController.Frame Set propertyset(0) = MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, ToPoint, $A$1) Call UnoObj.executeDispatch(document, .uno:GoToCell, , 0, propertyset) Set propertyset(0) = MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, BackgroundColor, 16711680) Call UnoObj.executeDispatch(document, .uno:BackgroundColor, , 0, propertyset) oSpreadsheet.Close(True) set UnoObj = Nothing set oSpreadsheet = Nothing set oDesktop = Nothing set oServiceManager = Nothing Function MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, cName, uValue) Dim oStruct Set oStruct = oServiceManager.Bridge_GetStruct(com.sun.star.beans.PropertyValue) Set MakePropertyValue = oStruct End Function
Re: OpenOffice.org email forwarder shutdown: That time is now
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: In case you missed it on the other thread, we heard from Andrew that the remaining Oracle servers that supported the legacy OOo project will be shut down starting on March 15th. This includes the mailing list and the mail forwarder. We dealt with the mailing lists before, sending notes to the active ones that the project had moved over to Apache and gave them the new addresses. I subscribe to many of these lists and they have been silent for months. I moderate one and it is all spam, and has been for months. If you are seeing any openoffice.org list that still has real traffic on it, then please speak up. We need to identify any active remaining lists and send them the information here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Email+Migration+Post At the same time we need to notify users that the openoffice.org email forwarding service is being retired as of March 15th. I had already drafted a note for this, and it was previously reviewed. I've just updated it to put in the actual shutdown date: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/%28Draft%29+Public+Statement+on+Email+Forwarding If there are no objections, my plan is to: 1) Move that wiki page into a blog post, clean up for formatting and publish it The blog post is out: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/retirement_of_openoffice_org_email Also on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/rcweir/statuses/175664277552766977 And Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/110021943609888508798/posts/WnwA84zDZiJ 2) On Monday morning send a note out to ooo-announce, referring to that blog post for details. Done. I'm holding off until Monday for the ooo-announce post. It is more likely to be read if sent out on a Monday than a Friday. Are there any other places we should post this information to? Legacy dev/user/discuss lists? phpBB Forums? Any NLC's? If anyone can help broadening the reach of this information, it would help avoid surprises when March 15th comes. 3) Open a JIRA issue with Infra on a custom bounce notification Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4506 I could use help with: 1) Reaching out to NL groups that might not read or understand the above announcement 2) Updating our migration status wiki page (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status). This is referred to in the post as giving current information, but it is no longer current. 3) Responding to questions that this note may receive on the ooo-users list. Regards, -Rob
Re: Building with system ICU
On 03/05/12 06:05, Yuri Dario wrote: Hi Pedro, ICU was the first real hairy monster I found when I started looking at the OpenOffice code here the same :-( can you check if vcl builds for you with --system-icu? thanks When I last tried there would be linking errors. I am glad it failed because FreeBSD uses icu 4.8.x which is very incompatible. I would think older versions of ICU up to 4.6 may work. Pedro.
Re: Executing UNO Dispatcher in VBScript doesn't reflect any changes in ODS file
I also don't see the Name and Value properties of the Property value being set in the function. Try Function MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, cName, uValue) Dim oStruct Set oStruct = oServiceManager.Bridge_GetStruct(com.sun.star.beans.PropertyValue) oStruct.Name = cName oStruct.Value = uValue Set MakePropertyValue = oStruct End Function On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:18 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: Try adding a Store request: Call UnoObj.executeDispatch(document, .uno:BackgroundColor, , 0, propertyset) oSpreadsheet.Store() oSpreadsheet.Close(True) Close won't do that for you. /tj/ On 3/5/2012 05:10, Subodh Asthana wrote: Executing UNO Dispatcher in VBScript doesn't reflect any changes in ODS file http://stackoverflow.com/q/9562093/264668?sem=2 Following is the code that I wrote to try formatting ODS using VBSript. It runs without any error but it *does not reflect any change* in the ODS file. Dim propertyset(0) Dim arg() Set oServiceManager = CreateObject(com.sun.star.ServiceManager) Set oDesktop = oServiceManager.createInstance(com.sun.star.frame.Desktop) Set UnoObj = oServiceManager.createInstance(com.sun.star.frame.DispatchHelper) sFileName = D:\Untitled 1.ods sFileName = Replace (sFileName, \, /) sURL = file:/// sFileName Set oSpreadsheet = oDesktop.loadComponentFromURL(sURL, _blank, 0, arg) 'load existing spreadsheet set oSheet1 = oSpreadsheet.getSheets.getByName( Sheet1 ) set document = oSpreadsheet.CurrentController.Frame Set propertyset(0) = MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, ToPoint, $A$1) Call UnoObj.executeDispatch(document, .uno:GoToCell, , 0, propertyset) Set propertyset(0) = MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, BackgroundColor, 16711680) Call UnoObj.executeDispatch(document, .uno:BackgroundColor, , 0, propertyset) oSpreadsheet.Close(True) set UnoObj = Nothing set oSpreadsheet = Nothing set oDesktop = Nothing set oServiceManager = Nothing Function MakePropertyValue(oServiceManager, cName, uValue) Dim oStruct Set oStruct = oServiceManager.Bridge_GetStruct(com.sun.star.beans.PropertyValue) Set MakePropertyValue = oStruct End Function
GSoC 2012 is coming
Hi; As you know, once each year Google selects projects that they would like to fund by paying students for tasks. The Google Summer of Code program is a huge opportunity for projects like OpenOffice in order to achieve technical objectives and to get new blood into in the project. Being under the ASF umbrella greatly simplifies the administrative efforts to participate in such program but still we have homework to do: 1) We need good project ideas. These necessarily have to be coding projects and have to have an estimated difficulty that permits effective results in a summer. 2) We need mentors; that is, people with technical skills that know what to be done and can provide help in the details. It obviously also means people with time to review code and guide complete newcomers to the code. It is not specifically required but some logic would imply that: 1) Mentors will have to be committers to ensure the results will become part of source tree. 2) Selected students will have to submit an ICLA. 3) A proposed project must be backed by a mentor. I would also expect that being very optimistic we will get very few slots for AOO: we are under friendly competition with other Apache projects that are interesting for students and that have experience dealing with GSoC students from previous years. best regards, Pedro.
Incubator PMC/Board report for Mar 2012 ([ppmc])
Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 March 2012, 10:00:00 PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Mar 7th). Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2012 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC
Re: [BUILD]AOO build error in solaris
Recently, i meet a new problem in building rev1296433:
In module ucb,platform is Solaris 10 , Compiler is SolarisStudio 12.3
===
Entering /BuildArea/ooo/main/ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy
Making:all_ucphier.dpslo
Compiling: ucb/unxsoli4.pro/misc/ucphier1_version.c
cc: Warning: illegal use of -features option, illegal item ignored: rvalueref
cc: Warning: illegal use of -features option, empty value ignored
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
int http_dav_ucp::SerfSession::verifySerfCertificateChain(int,const
char**,int) ../../../unxsoli4.pro/slo/SerfCallbacks.o
ld: fatal: symbol referencing errors. No output written to
../../../unxsoli4.pro/lib/libucpdav1.so
dmake: Error code 2, while making '../../../unxsoli4.pro/lib/libucpdav1.so'
---* tg_merge.mk *---
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchyservices.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchydata.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchyprovider.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchycontent.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchycontentcaps.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchydatasupplier.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/dynamicresultset.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchydatasource.cxx
Compiling: ucb/source/ucp/hierarchy/hierarchyuri.cxx
Making:ucphier.lib
Making:_ucphier.lib
Making:libucphier1.so
Making:all_ucphier.dpslo
:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/BuildArea/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/lib${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}}
/BuildArea/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/bin/xsltproc --nonet
--stringparam uri \
'vnd.sun.star.expand:$OOO_BASE_DIR/program/libucphier1.so' -o
../../../unxsoli4.pro/misc/ucphier1.component \
/BuildArea/ooo/main/solenv/bin/createcomponent.xslt ucphier1.component
1 module(s):
ucb
need(s) to be rebuilt
Reason(s):
ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/BuildArea/ooo/main/ucb/source/ucp/webdav
When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
by running:
build --from ucb
Re: Building with system ICU
Hi Pedro, When I last tried there would be linking errors. here I can't even reach that point, because gbuild wants icule.lib inside solver tree... (instead of using system library...) -- Bye, Yuri Dario /* * OS/2 open source software * http://web.os2power.com/yuri * http://www.netlabs.org */
Re: [BUILD] Re: A small problem with compiling from source
On 3/5/12 1:11 PM, Очиров Николай wrote: Thank you!! But It still doesn't work! I tried to use ''make'', but it didn't work. What is this command - build? Where did it take? build is an alias to execute a perl build script. Have you sourced the prepared environment script after you run configure and bootstrap? Juergen 04.03.2012, 08:58, Andrew Ristandrew.r...@oracle.com: On 3/3/2012 1:52 PM, Очиров Николай wrote: Hi! I have no experience building openoffice, and I have a problem. I followed these instructions http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide for Ubuntu 11.04, but used 11.10. Currently, it is easiest to get the build to run on Ubuntu 10.04. There are various issues that you will run into on Ubuntu 11.04/11.10/12 alpha. Among these issues are the need to switch to /usr/bin/ld to point to ld.gold. Your easiest way to get the build running is to build up a machine (or vm) with Ubuntu 10.04 with the following additional packages: sudo apt-get install g++ gcc bison flex libarchive-zip-perl libcups2-dev libpam0g-dev openjdk-6-jdk gperf libfreetype6-dev libxaw7-dev libfontconfig1-dev libxrandr-dev patch libgconf2-dev libgnomevfs2-dev ant libgtk2.0-dev junit junit4 epm libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-dev librsvg2-dev python-dev subversion autoconf rpm libdbus-glib-1-dev libdbus-glib-1-dev libgl1-mesa-dev libglu1-mesa-dev libglib2.0-dev libidl-dev liborbit2-dev When I run the script ./bootstrap after ./configure with no arguments there is an error: /bootstrap 56: ./configure : permission denied. How to fix it? What is the reason? I was looking for the cause of the internet, but have not found a solution. Your commands for a full build from scratch would look like this: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk ooo cd ooo/main wget -O external/unowinreg/unowinreg.dll http://tools.openoffice.org/unowinreg_prebuild/680/unowinreg.dll autoconf ./configure --enable-verbose --enable-category-b --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2; --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz; ./bootstrap . ./LinuxX86Env.Set.sh cd instsetoo_native build --all --html -P2 -- -P2 If you get that running, then you might try building with more stuff using a config like this: ./configure --enable-verbose --enable-category-b --enable-minimizer --enable-presenter-console --enable-wiki-publisher --enable-open gl --enable-dbus --enable-gstreamer --with-package-format=installed rpm deb --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.code spot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz; --with-lang=ru P.S: Excuse me if I made a mistakes! we all do... My English is bad, very bad, but I'm trying to improve the English skills! your English is much better than my Russian I really hope for your support!
[EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. I also suspect that it is not a good idea to rebrand the Extensions and Templates pages at SourceForge quite so strongly, since the only extensions that are there now are for OO.o (and perhaps LibreOffice). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 02:06 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote: Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed (e..g, r1293550) then the install was a success. Please send a short note to theooo-...@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have already been attempted and which have not. Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8 Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3 Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy. Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed individual extensions later today. Hi Larry, unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes. Sorry Juergen All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later.
Re: GSoC 2012 is coming
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi; As you know, once each year Google selects projects that they would like to fund by paying students for tasks. The Google Summer of Code program is a huge opportunity for projects like OpenOffice in order to achieve technical objectives and to get new blood into in the project. Being under the ASF umbrella greatly simplifies the administrative efforts to participate in such program but still we have homework to do: Looking at the timeline here: http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2012 Mentoring organizations (that would be the ASF) have until this Friday to apply. Assuming ASF is approved, Google notifies the accepted organizations on March 16h. Students look at open projects from the 17th through the 25th, So, if we want to be involved, we need to move fast. But I'm not sure who we is. Do Apache projects, including podlings apply for this? Or is it up to individual GSoC mentors to do this? Is there any community or PMC review or approval required? 1) We need good project ideas. These necessarily have to be coding projects and have to have an estimated difficulty that permits effective results in a summer. Looking at the timeframe for this, it looks like the program is mainly mid-May through mid-August. So this will be after AOO 3.4 is out, but before AOO 4.0 is out. Does it need to be be core AOO C++ code projects? Or could it be, for example, test suite development in Java? What about OpenOffice extensions? 2) We need mentors; that is, people with technical skills that know what to be done and can provide help in the details. It obviously also means people with time to review code and guide complete newcomers to the code. It is not specifically required but some logic would imply that: 1) Mentors will have to be committers to ensure the results will become part of source tree. 2) Selected students will have to submit an ICLA. 3) A proposed project must be backed by a mentor. I would also expect that being very optimistic we will get very few slots for AOO: we are under friendly competition with other Apache projects that are interesting for students and that have experience dealing with GSoC students from previous years. Maybe we can get started by collecting ideas on a wiki page? best regards, Pedro.
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. If you are volunteering to re-write the extension manager client database support, please speak up and let us know your plan. I also suspect that it is not a good idea to rebrand the Extensions and Templates pages at SourceForge quite so strongly, since the only extensions that are there now are for OO.o (and perhaps LibreOffice). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 02:06 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote: Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed (e..g, r1293550) then the install was a success. Please send a short note to theooo-...@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have already been attempted and which have not. Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8 Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3 Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy. Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed individual extensions later today. Hi Larry, unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes. Sorry Juergen All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later.
Re: GSoC 2012 is coming
--- Lun 5/3/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto: Looking at the timeframe for this, it looks like the program is mainly mid-May through mid-August. So this will be after AOO 3.4 is out, but before AOO 4.0 is out. I think we will likely start using branches for some projects by then. Does it need to be be core AOO C++ code projects? Or could it be, for example, test suite development in Java? What about OpenOffice extensions? Both are pretty valid. I meant you can forget about marketing, documentation, or translation projects. Google Code-in is more appropriate for that. FWIW, the process has been revised several times by Google but there will likely be a midterm evaluations and final evaluations, ohh and mentors are also paid. Maybe we can get started by collecting ideas on a wiki page? Absolutely. I highly recommend using a format with at least this fields: [Project Idea Title] [Contact information] [Project Description ] [Links] Pedro.
Re: [INFRA] download.services.openoffice.org in danger
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/04/2012 08:02 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher: With the Oracle infrastructure going away we are in danger of losing the legacy downloads and the root of the MirrorBrain network. I haven't realised that this counts also for the download webserver. I thought for mail services only. Also it turns out that the Extensions site uses the url updateexte.services.openoffice.org for updates and that url points to download.services.openoffice.org I don't know the reason for the linking. But maybe it's because a few extensions are outsourced from the main repository due to their high load. See: http://download.services.openoffice.org/files/extended/extensions/ SourceForge has asked to take control of updateexte.services.openoffice.org which makes sense. Great. Let us know how to move this forward. By the way, we look forward to give the control back to the community for maintenance, maybe we could create an admin account for Infra? What do we want to do about download.services.openoffice.org? It can be switched to the alternative host which is hosted by MirrorBrain itself, so that this is used for serving downloads instead of the Oracle hosted service. See the file http://www.openoffice.org/download/globalvars.js;. Just exchange the content for the MIRROR_MIRRORBRAIN_URL and MIRROR_MIRRORBRAIN2_URL variables. If you need any help on that let us know, we might serve them temporary in case. Best, Roberto Marcus This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
RE: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
It is one thing to encourage users to remove their older versions. It is another thing to automatically remove them and, along with that, features that they are relying upon. I don't think the ability of OO.o to replace versions in the same line (i.e., 3.* -- and 3.* did not remove 2.* and 1.* as far as I know) is the proper precedent. I think how LibreOffice endeavored not to do that with their first and subsequent releases is the proper precedent. This is not about wearing the crown, it is about serving the user community. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. If you are volunteering to re-write the extension manager client database support, please speak up and let us know your plan. I also suspect that it is not a good idea to rebrand the Extensions and Templates pages at SourceForge quite so strongly, since the only extensions that are there now are for OO.o (and perhaps LibreOffice). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 02:06 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote: Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed (e..g, r1293550) then the install was a success. Please send a short note to theooo-...@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have already been attempted and which have not. Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8 Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3 Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy. Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed individual extensions later today. Hi Larry, unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes. Sorry Juergen All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later.
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [BUILD] Re: A small problem with compiling from source
Hello, Juergen. yes, i've typed ./LinuxX86Env.Set.sh in console after running ./bootstrap. 05.03.2012, 21:08, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: On 3/5/12 1:11 PM, Очиров Николай wrote: Thank you!! But It still doesn't work! I tried to use ''make'', but it didn't work. What is this command - build? Where did it take? build is an alias to execute a perl build script. Have you sourced the prepared environment script after you run configure and bootstrap? Juergen 04.03.2012, 08:58, Andrew Ristandrew.r...@oracle.com: On 3/3/2012 1:52 PM, Очиров Николай wrote: Hi! I have no experience building openoffice, and I have a problem. I followed these instructions http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide for Ubuntu 11.04, but used 11.10. Currently, it is easiest to get the build to run on Ubuntu 10.04. There are various issues that you will run into on Ubuntu 11.04/11.10/12 alpha. Among these issues are the need to switch to /usr/bin/ld to point to ld.gold. Your easiest way to get the build running is to build up a machine (or vm) with Ubuntu 10.04 with the following additional packages: sudo apt-get install g++ gcc bison flex libarchive-zip-perl libcups2-dev libpam0g-dev openjdk-6-jdk gperf libfreetype6-dev libxaw7-dev libfontconfig1-dev libxrandr-dev patch libgconf2-dev libgnomevfs2-dev ant libgtk2.0-dev junit junit4 epm libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-dev librsvg2-dev python-dev subversion autoconf rpm libdbus-glib-1-dev libdbus-glib-1-dev libgl1-mesa-dev libglu1-mesa-dev libglib2.0-dev libidl-dev liborbit2-dev When I run the script ./bootstrap after ./configure with no arguments there is an error: /bootstrap 56: ./configure : permission denied. How to fix it? What is the reason? I was looking for the cause of the internet, but have not found a solution. Your commands for a full build from scratch would look like this: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk ooo cd ooo/main wget -O external/unowinreg/unowinreg.dll http://tools.openoffice.org/unowinreg_prebuild/680/unowinreg.dll autoconf ./configure --enable-verbose --enable-category-b --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2; --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz; ./bootstrap . ./LinuxX86Env.Set.sh cd instsetoo_native build --all --html -P2 -- -P2 If you get that running, then you might try building with more stuff using a config like this: ./configure --enable-verbose --enable-category-b --enable-minimizer --enable-presenter-console --enable-wiki-publisher --enable-open gl --enable-dbus --enable-gstreamer --with-package-format=installed rpm deb --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.code spot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz; --with-lang=ru P.S: Excuse me if I made a mistakes! we all do... My English is bad, very bad, but I'm trying to improve the English skills! your English is much better than my Russian I really hope for your support!
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. Jean
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: It is one thing to encourage users to remove their older versions. It is another thing to automatically remove them and, along with that, features that they are relying upon. I don't think the ability of OO.o to replace versions in the same line (i.e., 3.* -- and 3.* did not remove 2.* and 1.* as far as I know) is the proper precedent. I think how LibreOffice endeavored not to do that with their first and subsequent releases is the proper precedent. This is not about wearing the crown, it is about serving the user community. Again, your opinion carries as far as your willingness to code an alternative install approach. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. If you are volunteering to re-write the extension manager client database support, please speak up and let us know your plan. I also suspect that it is not a good idea to rebrand the Extensions and Templates pages at SourceForge quite so strongly, since the only extensions that are there now are for OO.o (and perhaps LibreOffice). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 02:06 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote: Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed (e..g, r1293550) then the install was a success. Please send a short note to theooo-...@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have already been attempted and which have not. Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8 Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3 Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy. Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed individual extensions later today. Hi Larry, unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes. Sorry Juergen All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later.
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. I'm not aware of other customizations being overwritten in this case. Can you say more? -Rob Jean
Re: [INFRA] download.services.openoffice.org in danger
Am 03/05/2012 07:19 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/04/2012 08:02 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher: With the Oracle infrastructure going away we are in danger of losing the legacy downloads and the root of the MirrorBrain network. I haven't realised that this counts also for the download webserver. I thought for mail services only. Also it turns out that the Extensions site uses the url updateexte.services.openoffice.org for updates and that url points to download.services.openoffice.org I don't know the reason for the linking. But maybe it's because a few extensions are outsourced from the main repository due to their high load. See: http://download.services.openoffice.org/files/extended/extensions/ SourceForge has asked to take control of updateexte.services.openoffice.org which makes sense. Great. Let us know how to move this forward. By the way, we look forward to give the control back to the community for maintenance, maybe we could create an admin account for Infra? What do we want to do about download.services.openoffice.org? It can be switched to the alternative host which is hosted by MirrorBrain itself, so that this is used for serving downloads instead of the Oracle hosted service. See the file http://www.openoffice.org/download/globalvars.js;. Just exchange the content for the MIRROR_MIRRORBRAIN_URL and MIRROR_MIRRORBRAIN2_URL variables. If you need any help on that let us know, we might serve them temporary in case. No problem, I can do the change at (nearly ;-) ) any time. It's just one commit away. But it would be interesting to know a bit more about hosting the download bits. Is it also via MirrorBrain? What's the URL? Thanks Marcus
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x Yes. But note that this will also be true if we installed AOO into a different directory. They would need to reinstall all the extensions again also. One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. That won't help in this case. Regardless of where the profile is stored, we're unable to read the local DB that stored information about what extensions were installed. So whether we use the same profile or not, the user still must reinstall extensions if they want them to work in AOO 3.4. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? If the user's goal is to continue running OOo 3.3.0, then what can we say? Don't install AOO 3.4 or 4.0, or 5.0, etc.But if they do want to run AOO 3.4 then they will need to reinstall the extensions. I haven't heard anyone suggest an alternative approach to solving that problem. Of course, patches are welcome. I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:46, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. I'm not aware of other customizations being overwritten in this case. Can you say more? -Rob Jean Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I might not be aware. --Jean
Templates site link from OOo
Hi, The SourceForge help was big when they migrated the templates site. The full redirction from templates.services.openoffice.org to new place will be happen? When I click on More templates in OOo 3.3/AOO 3.4m1 template manager window, the links bring me to the address: http://templates.services.openoffice.org/?cid=923508 and get error message: This space is managed by SourceForge.net. You have attempted to access a URL that either never existed or is no longer active. Please check the source of your link and/or contact the maintainer of the link to have them update their records. This can be solved? Thanks, Zoltan
Unsubscription
Hi, please I want to unsubscribe me from the mailing list
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 1:44 PM Rob Weir wrote: Again, your opinion carries as far as your willingness to code an alternative install approach. Are you saying that unless one is willing to provide code there is no point in making suggestions? I am getting sick of this insulting attitude that is way too prevalent in open source communities. Do you want suggestions from anyone other than developers? If so, change your attitude. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 1:52 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x Yes. But note that this will also be true if we installed AOO into a different directory. They would need to reinstall all the extensions again also. That is pretty obvious. What is your point? One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. That won't help in this case. Regardless of where the profile is stored, we're unable to read the local DB that stored information about what extensions were installed. So whether we use the same profile or not, the user still must reinstall extensions if they want them to work in AOO 3.4. Yes it would. Importing the data that can be used in AOO 3.4 would leave the OOo user profile intact. If the user then continues to use OOo their user profile would be intact. The user would only have to install the extensions instead of redoing all user preferences, dictionaries, templates, etc. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? If the user's goal is to continue running OOo 3.3.0, then what can we say? Don't install AOO 3.4 or 4.0, or 5.0, etc.But if they do want to run AOO 3.4 then they will need to reinstall the extensions. I haven't heard anyone suggest an alternative approach to solving that problem. I have suggested an alternative that leaves the OOo profile intact. Of course, patches are welcome. I am not a programmer. Such suggestions to users are insulting. Do you want our feedback? -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 06:07, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:46, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. I'm not aware of other customizations being overwritten in this case. Can you say more? -Rob Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I might not be aware. I note that you have ignored the real issue in my previous note: alienating users. I would like to hear how you expect or intend to deal with that. --Jean
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:46, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. I'm not aware of other customizations being overwritten in this case. Can you say more? -Rob Jean Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I might not be aware. OK. If you come across anything specific, please enter an issue in BZ. But for sake of a reasonable debate on the specific install question in this thread, I'd recommend we not bring up hypothetical issues that you are not actually aware of. -Rob --Jean
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 1:44 PM Rob Weir wrote: Again, your opinion carries as far as your willingness to code an alternative install approach. Are you saying that unless one is willing to provide code there is no point in making suggestions? I am getting sick of this insulting attitude that is way too prevalent in open source communities. I didn't say no point. But repeating the same suggestion over and over and over and over again, with no code is rather pointless. Do you want suggestions from anyone other than developers? If so, change your attitude. Personally, I want bug reports more than suggestions right now. But code that fixes bugs is golden. -Rob -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 06:07, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:46, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that becomes imperative.) In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new version? I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it. Agree Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. I'm not aware of other customizations being overwritten in this case. Can you say more? -Rob Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I might not be aware. I note that you have ignored the real issue in my previous note: alienating users. I would like to hear how you expect or intend to deal with that. I don't equate any amount of user inconvenience with alienating users. To suggest this is pure hyperbole, divorced from reality. Microsoft breaks their plugins with every release and requires reinstall. They seem to manage to preserve a non-negligible market share. Many programs do this. Some do better, some check for compatibility and enable some but not all extensions. I suppose if the Mozilla developers said that they had to bread the compatibility checking code in a release, that some project members might resort to hyperbole about alienating users and say that it was unacceptable. But not that their unacceptable solution is just life as usual for OpenOffice, since we don't do compatibility checks on upgrade. And what you call unacceptable in OpenOffice is just life as usual for MS Office. A little perspective goes a long way. This is not the end of the world. Not even close. I recommend dealing with it with user education. -Rob --Jean
RE: Unsubscription
Please unsubscribe me from the mailng list. Thank you. From: jorge_89...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:11:04 + Hi, please I want to unsubscribe me from the mailing list
RE: Templates site link from OOo
I get the same message. Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 21:10:07 +0100 From: zreizin...@hdsnet.hu To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Templates site link from OOo Hi, The SourceForge help was big when they migrated the templates site. The full redirction from templates.services.openoffice.org to new place will be happen? When I click on More templates in OOo 3.3/AOO 3.4m1 template manager window, the links bring me to the address: http://templates.services.openoffice.org/?cid=923508 and get error message: This space is managed by SourceForge.net. You have attempted to access a URL that either never existed or is no longer active. Please check the source of your link and/or contact the maintainer of the link to have them update their records. This can be solved? Thanks, Zoltan
RE: Unsubscription
Yes, I want to unsubscribe from the daily/hourly subscription. From: mapuanakaponi...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:16:34 -0800 Please unsubscribe me from the mailng list. Thank you. From: jorge_89...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:11:04 + Hi, please I want to unsubscribe me from the mailing list
[CODE] Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Le 5 mars 12 à 21:29, Rob Weir a écrit : On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 1:44 PM Rob Weir wrote: Again, your opinion carries as far as your willingness to code an alternative install approach. Are you saying that unless one is willing to provide code there is no point in making suggestions? I am getting sick of this insulting attitude that is way too prevalent in open source communities. I didn't say no point. But repeating the same suggestion over and over and over and over again, with no code is rather pointless. Do you want suggestions from anyone other than developers? If so, change your attitude. Personally, I want bug reports more than suggestions right now. But code that fixes bugs is golden. Well, install Apache OpenOffice without use / share / destroy old OpenOffice.org preferences is really easy. More precisely, you have several place where you'll have to change something : - scp2/source/ooo/common_brand.scp : contains the UserInstallation key, where the OpenOffice.org - for us the new Apache OpenOffice - user preferences will be put during bootstrap (at first launch). ProfileItem gid_Brand_Profileitem_Bootstrap_Userinstall ProfileID = gid_Brand_Profile_Bootstrap_Ini; ModuleID = gid_Module_Root_Brand; Section = Bootstrap; Order = 3; Key = UserInstallation; #ifdef WNT Value = $SYSUSERCONFIG/%ONEWORDPRODUCTNAME/% USERDIRPRODUCTVERSION; #elif defined MACOSX Value = $SYSUSERCONFIG/%ONEWORDPRODUCTNAME/% USERDIRPRODUCTVERSION; #else Value = $SYSUSERCONFIG/.%LCONEWORDPRODUCTNAME/% USERDIRPRODUCTVERSION; #endif End - instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst : where the keys are defined, depending you build product, or devel or something else. e.g. you can define the version number for the preferences, e.g like macros like SYSUSERCONFIG , ONEWORDPRODUCTNAME and USERDIRPRODUCTVERSION As example, in OOo4Kids, USERDIRPRODUCTVERSION contains 1.0, means OOo4Kids 1.0, 1.1 ... and the next 1.3 will share the same preferences (in ~/... /OOo4Kids/1.0/. In the case I change something who will break the preferences, set USERDIRPRODUCTVERSION to 2.0 is the safest way to avoid breaking the old prefs, and keep the old version working This will work the same way with OpenOffice.org. Other solution could be to replace ONEWORDAPACHEPRODUCTNAME and to use OpenOffice instead, or Apache OpenOffice ... whatever different will work imho. For the curious, another place who worth a try is solenv/bin/modules/ installer/scriptitems.pm (grep for SYSUSERCONFIG). Last, SYSUSERCONFIG is builtin in sal/rtl/source/bootstrap.cxx Of course, I can't decide alone, and I need opinions, and any candidate for this easy hack is welcome :-) HTH, Eric -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 2:29 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 1:44 PM Rob Weir wrote: Again, your opinion carries as far as your willingness to code an alternative install approach. Are you saying that unless one is willing to provide code there is no point in making suggestions? I am getting sick of this insulting attitude that is way too prevalent in open source communities. I didn't say no point. But repeating the same suggestion over and over and over and over again, with no code is rather pointless. Discussing an issue about the upcoming release is not making the same suggestion repeatedly. Again your with no code comment is condescending and insulting. Do you want suggestions from anyone other than developers? If so, change your attitude. Personally, I want bug reports more than suggestions right now. But code that fixes bugs is golden. In other words you don't want any suggestions that are contrary to your opinion -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: Unsubscription
Hi Send a mail to ooo-dev-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org end you will get a mail back who you ask if you will realy unsubscribe. Simply replay this mail, you have nothing to write. Then you will get a message GOODBYE. After this message you will get no messages anymore. Greetings Raphael Am 05.03.12 22:19, schrieb louise zuleger: Yes, I want to unsubscribe from the daily/hourly subscription. From: mapuanakaponi...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:16:34 -0800 Please unsubscribe me from the mailng list. Thank you. From: jorge_89...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:11:04 + Hi, please I want to unsubscribe me from the mailing list
Re: Unsubscription
Which brings up a question...why do we not configure ooo-dev to auto-generate the how to digest and how to unsub info on the 1st of every month (like 90% of the mailman-driven mail lists I'm on) My guess is we have a lot of subscribers who aren't developers and would prefer to opt out or to digest the stream... D On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Raphael Bircher rbircher_...@bluewin.chwrote: Hi Send a mail to ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.orgooo-dev-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgend you will get a mail back who you ask if you will realy unsubscribe. Simply replay this mail, you have nothing to write. Then you will get a message GOODBYE. After this message you will get no messages anymore. Greetings Raphael Am 05.03.12 22:19, schrieb louise zuleger: Yes, I want to unsubscribe from the daily/hourly subscription. From: mapuanakaponi...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:16:34 -0800 Please unsubscribe me from the mailng list. Thank you. From: jorge_89...@hotmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Unsubscription Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 20:11:04 + Hi, please I want to unsubscribe me from the mailing list
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Mar 2012 ([ppmc])
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Marvin no-re...@apache.org wrote: Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 March 2012, 10:00:00 PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Mar 7th). Quick reminder: Our quarterly report is due to the IPMC on Wed. I just reviewed and it looked fine. I made a few small changes/additions. I'd love to include a line or two from the Community Forums, if there are any new stats on subscribers, questions answered, etc. Otherwise, I think we're ready for mentor sign off. -Rob Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2012 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC
Re: [CODE] Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
OOops, my mail should have started with hello, Apologies, I was not very polite :-/ -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Mar 2012 ([ppmc])
2012/3/5 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: I'd love to include a line or two from the Community Forums, if there are any new stats on subscribers, questions answered, etc. Hagar added new data some days ago: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=222874#p222874
Re: [BZ] Please change some default values when creating new issues
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Hi, please can a BZ admin change the default version when creating new issue to a more senseful value? version58 -- AOO-dev or OOo 3.3 What would you make the default? Whichever you do, it will be wrong for some bugs. Maybe 3.3 makes more sense, since users of 3.4 dev builds presumably can be trusted to override the default themselves. In any case, there is no admin setting for default versions. The closest I've seen is setting versions via this QA form; http://www.openoffice.org/qa/issue_handling/submission_gateway.html I think adding a version=foo to the submissions would set a default. But in general that gateway form is in bad shape. It is hardcoded a lot of legacy default assignments that are incorrect. This is a good project for someone who can give a couple of hours. Furthermore, the version item AOO-dev seems not available for all products. Could this be changed please? Do you know off hand which ones are missing? Or even better, if you enter a defect in BZ classified under www/AOO Bugzilla, that will ensure I don't forget your request. Regards, -Rob Thanks Marcus
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Mar 2012 ([ppmc])
Thanks - signed off. On 5 March 2012 22:10, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: I'd love to include a line or two from the Community Forums, if there are any new stats on subscribers, questions answered, etc. Hagar added new data some days ago: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=222874#p222874 Great. Thanks. I added a link to that in the report. -Rob -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not even as of today. And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
2012/3/5 Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com: Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. +1. I think that adding an a on the path of both, install folder and user profile (something like ~/.aopenoffice.org/, or even shorter: ~/.aoo/) will prevent some problems and confusion.
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not, as you say. that we are deleting all installed extensions. The issue is that the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions need to be reinstalled. Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect for those who looked into this issue in detail previously. But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not even as of today. And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. Regards, -Rob -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com: Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. +1. I think that adding an a on the path of both, install folder and user profile (something like ~/.aopenoffice.org/, or even shorter: ~/.aoo/) will prevent some problems and confusion. Again, show me the bug report that has a reproducible case for AOO 3.4 overwriting OOo 3.3.0 profile data. I hope you agree that the lack of such a bug report makes this whole discussion rather bizarre, like maybe we have too many opinionated project members chasing after too few facts? -Rob
[INFRA] download statistics fixed / little problem left
Hi, with some maintenance updates I did on download.services.openoffice.org, I recently broke the download statistics (http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html). I fixed them a few days ago. The web page doesn't update anymore, though, since the 20th of February. That was the day when I broke the generation of the underlying download counting. I suppose that we don't mind to continue couting :-) and the underlying data generation is fixed now. But who is in the position to get the page to be updated again? I know there's a daily cronjob which pulls the download counts in CSV format from download.services.openoffice.org, but I am not sure who installed that and/or who has access to the web server where the stats are hosted. Thanks, Peter
RE: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB. However, the dots with respect to the current state and consequences for users were not connected for me until I saw Jürgen Schmidt's reply today concerning the experience of Larry Gusaas. My creation of this derivative thread was immediate. It was inspired by situation being made so clear. I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing of the system integration install versions began last week. As a matter of my *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that automatically removed previous versions, especially for a release under a reconstituted project. But that's a matter of personal principles. I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the Apache OpenOffice code base. I do have the means to detect and demonstrate defects and make Bugzilla reports. I can also recommend that the advice of RGB ES and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with Larry and Jean that this is a significant policy issue. Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. It doesn't matter. It is clearly before us at this moment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. [ ... ]
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
2012/3/5 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com: Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. +1. I think that adding an a on the path of both, install folder and user profile (something like ~/.aopenoffice.org/, or even shorter: ~/.aoo/) will prevent some problems and confusion. Again, show me the bug report that has a reproducible case for AOO 3.4 overwriting OOo 3.3.0 profile data. I hope you agree that the lack of such a bug report makes this whole discussion rather bizarre, like maybe we have too many opinionated project members chasing after too few facts? -Rob My few facts comes from almost a decade providing support to *normal* users that do not look at blogs, mailing lists, wikis... and just install an update when they find it. But that is my personal experience, it could be subjective... BTW, according to WordNet opinionated means narrow minded which I think is a little too much, don't you think? After all, I commented on this topic only once... Regards Ricardo
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB. However, the dots with respect to the current state and consequences for users were not connected for me until I saw Jürgen Schmidt's reply today concerning the experience of Larry Gusaas. My creation of this derivative thread was immediate. It was inspired by situation being made so clear. I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing of the system integration install versions began last week. As a matter of my *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that automatically removed previous versions, especially for a release under a reconstituted project. But that's a matter of personal principles. Your personal policy goes against the constant practice of this project for many many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the Apache OpenOffice code base. I do have the means to detect and demonstrate defects and make Bugzilla reports. I can also recommend that the advice of RGB ES and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with Larry and Jean that this is a significant policy issue. Please do. I'd love to see the BZ issues. This would make the question concrete rather than the rampant speculation I've otherwise read today. Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. It doesn't matter. It is clearly before us at this moment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. [ ... ]
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com: Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. +1. I think that adding an a on the path of both, install folder and user profile (something like ~/.aopenoffice.org/, or even shorter: ~/.aoo/) will prevent some problems and confusion. Again, show me the bug report that has a reproducible case for AOO 3.4 overwriting OOo 3.3.0 profile data. I hope you agree that the lack of such a bug report makes this whole discussion rather bizarre, like maybe we have too many opinionated project members chasing after too few facts? -Rob My few facts comes from almost a decade providing support to *normal* users that do not look at blogs, mailing lists, wikis... and just install an update when they find it. But that is my personal experience, it could be subjective... I'm not saying that requiring a reinstall of extensions is a great thing. I'm just saying that no one yet has suggested a technical alternative, and that complaining alone will be unlikely to change things. BTW, according to WordNet opinionated means narrow minded which I think is a little too much, don't you think? After all, I commented on this topic only once... I would not have used that definition. Take it as you are providing opinions on the impact of a bug that no one has managed to actually report to BZ. So we have speculation rather than facts. Let's get the facts, OK? -Rob Regards Ricardo
Re: [BZ] Please change some default values when creating new issues
Am 03/05/2012 11:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Hi, please can a BZ admin change the default version when creating new issue to a more senseful value? version58 -- AOO-dev or OOo 3.3 What would you make the default? Whichever you do, it will be wrong for some bugs. Maybe 3.3 makes more sense, since users of 3.4 dev builds presumably can be trusted to override the default themselves. When you ask this way, then the most recent and official version would be best: OOo 3.3. But honestly, version58 is the worst pre-setting as it doesn't exist for OOo and I don't know for what it was ever used. In any case, there is no admin setting for default versions. The closest I've seen is setting versions via this QA form; http://www.openoffice.org/qa/issue_handling/submission_gateway.html The webpage may a problem for itself, yes, but not the main one. From BZ itself you can create new issues with this pre-defined version. See: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ and just click on Chart. So, IMHO there has to be a setting to define the default version to present in this input mask. I think adding aversion=foo to the submissions would set a default. Good hint, that's working perfect. :-) But in general that gateway form is in bad shape. It is hardcoded a lot of legacy default assignments that are incorrect. This is a good project for someone who can give a couple of hours. Right. Furthermore, the version item AOO-dev seems not available for all products. Could this be changed please? Do you know off hand which ones are missing? Or even better, if you enter a defect in BZ classified under www/AOO Bugzilla, that will ensure I don't forget your request. I've not looked into details but will try do so tomorrow. Then I can give you a BZ issue. Marcus
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mar 5, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2012-03-05 1:44 PM Rob Weir wrote: Again, your opinion carries as far as your willingness to code an alternative install approach. Are you saying that unless one is willing to provide code there is no point in making suggestions? I am getting sick of this insulting attitude that is way too prevalent in open source communities. Do you want suggestions from anyone other than developers? If so, change your attitude. Larry - Thank you! Keep the suggestions coming. Regards, Dave -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not, as you say. that we are deleting all installed extensions. The issue is that the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions need to be reinstalled. Rob, I think you are the one who has a simple misunderstanding. This issue is being re-raised now. Are we sure that there is no way that Berkeley DB can be used? Subversion seems to allow it - http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#divining-bdb-version Even if it can't be used should it be possible to hack the file to get the strings? The data can't be too difficult to understand. While not a functional blocker I firmly believe that this is a significant problem for AOO and this should be addressed constructively. Please don't give me a where is the code response. Best Regards, Dave Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect for those who looked into this issue in detail previously. But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not even as of today. And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. Regards, -Rob -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com: Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. +1. I think that adding an a on the path of both, install folder and user profile (something like ~/.aopenoffice.org/, or even shorter: ~/.aoo/) will prevent some problems and confusion. Again, show me the bug report that has a reproducible case for AOO 3.4 overwriting OOo 3.3.0 profile data. I hope you agree that the lack of such a bug report makes this whole discussion rather bizarre, like maybe we have too many opinionated project members chasing after too few facts? If that is true then maybe you should not be responding to this thread. Regards, Dave -Rob
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 4:38 PM Rob Weir wrote: This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. The problem with the database was known. The fact that you were planning to release a version that overwrote OOo and erased the extensions in the user profile was not clear until you asked for testing. And now you are complaining about us reporting the problems found. In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not a misunderstanding. I never said that 3.4 was overwriting my user profile. It is deleting all the extensions in my user profile. The folder that contained them is empty. It is not, as you say. that we are deleting all installed extensions. Then why is the folder that contained them empty? Installing 3.4 does exactly what I said it does. The issue is that the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions need to be reinstalled. Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect for those who looked into this issue in detail previously. It was? Then you better look at changing it, unless you want a bunch of disgruntled users on your hands. You asked for reports on installing as an overwrite and now you are trying to dismiss reports of the problems it causes. But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not even as of today. And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. And I suggest you learn to be less condescending. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: Templates site link from OOo
It looks like this is now fixed on both sides. Regards, Dave On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:18 PM, louise zuleger wrote: I get the same message. Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 21:10:07 +0100 From: zreizin...@hdsnet.hu To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Templates site link from OOo Hi, The SourceForge help was big when they migrated the templates site. The full redirction from templates.services.openoffice.org to new place will be happen? When I click on More templates in OOo 3.3/AOO 3.4m1 template manager window, the links bring me to the address: http://templates.services.openoffice.org/?cid=923508 and get error message: This space is managed by SourceForge.net. You have attempted to access a URL that either never existed or is no longer active. Please check the source of your link and/or contact the maintainer of the link to have them update their records. This can be solved? Thanks, Zoltan
Re: [INFRA] download statistics fixed / little problem left
On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Peter Pöml wrote: Hi, with some maintenance updates I did on download.services.openoffice.org, I recently broke the download statistics (http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html). I fixed them a few days ago. The web page doesn't update anymore, though, since the 20th of February. That was the day when I broke the generation of the underlying download counting. The 20th of February, 2011 was about when the change was made to Kenai. I suppose that we don't mind to continue couting :-) and the underlying data generation is fixed now. But who is in the position to get the page to be updated again? Where and how do you generate the statistics. I know there's a daily cronjob which pulls the download counts in CSV format from download.services.openoffice.org, but I am not sure who installed that and/or who has access to the web server where the stats are hosted. I bet this is long gone. However there are other tools available. I think that the preferred way would be to have a buildbot in the CMS to pull the data and publish the page. Regards, Dave Thanks, Peter
RE: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
I emphasized that my practice is a personal one and I did not presume that it was shared by this project. On the other hand, I am not so willing to anoint the Apache OpenOffice project as being this project for many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. Whether that was wise or not, I claim it is unwise of us for releases of Apache OpenOffice. I'm also amazed that anyone here would justify anything by saying we're no worse than Microsoft, in effect, with the arguably hyperbolic claim that Microsoft breaks their plugins with every release and requires reinstall. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 15:08 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB. However, the dots with respect to the current state and consequences for users were not connected for me until I saw Jürgen Schmidt's reply today concerning the experience of Larry Gusaas. My creation of this derivative thread was immediate. It was inspired by situation being made so clear. I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing of the system integration install versions began last week. As a matter of my *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that automatically removed previous versions, especially for a release under a reconstituted project. But that's a matter of personal principles. Your personal policy goes against the constant practice of this project for many many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the Apache OpenOffice code base. I do have the means to detect and demonstrate defects and make Bugzilla reports. I can also recommend that the advice of RGB ES and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with Larry and Jean that this is a significant policy issue. Please do. I'd love to see the BZ issues. This would make the question concrete rather than the rampant speculation I've otherwise read today. Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. It doesn't matter. It is clearly before us at this moment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. [ ... ]
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not, as you say. that we are deleting all installed extensions. The issue is that the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions need to be reinstalled. Rob, I think you are the one who has a simple misunderstanding. This issue is being re-raised now. Are we sure that there is no way that Berkeley DB can be used? Actually, there are grve misunderstandings here, both procedural and technical., Some have taken the fact that the extensions need to be reinstalled and extrapolated that as evidence that the profiles are overwritten. The procedural error is to think that raising or re-raising an issue magically makes code happen. Subversion seems to allow it - http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#divining-bdb-version Even if it can't be used should it be possible to hack the file to get the strings? The data can't be too difficult to understand. Patches are welcome. While not a functional blocker I firmly believe that this is a significant problem for AOO and this should be addressed constructively. Patches are welcome. Please don't give me a where is the code response. Patches are welcome. -Rob Best Regards, Dave Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect for those who looked into this issue in detail previously. But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not even as of today. And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing user support. Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. Regards, -Rob -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 4:38 PM Rob Weir wrote: This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. The problem with the database was known. The fact that you were planning to release a version that overwrote OOo and erased the extensions in the user profile was not clear until you asked for testing. And now you are complaining about us reporting the problems found. Maybe not clear to you, but the information was provided in early December when the code change was made. This was not hidden. The implications of this were plainly stated, for example on the wiki page that explained the user-facing ramifications of removing the Berkeley DB: The impact is that extensions installed for older versions of OpenOffice have to be re-installed. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance+Impact -Rob
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I emphasized that my practice is a personal one and I did not presume that it was shared by this project. On the other hand, I am not so willing to anoint the Apache OpenOffice project as being this project for many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. Whether that was wise or not, I claim it is unwise of us for releases of Apache OpenOffice. I'm also amazed that anyone here would justify anything by saying we're no worse than Microsoft, in effect, with the arguably hyperbolic claim that Microsoft breaks their plugins with every release and requires reinstall. Actually, Dennis, I'm justifying the current behavior based on not seeing any practical alternative, as well as the fact that no one has volunteered a fix, even given the fact that this issue has been known for over 3 months. That is reality. The Microsoft example was to demonstrate that this is not an earth-shattering problem, that users do not die from having to reinstall extensions, that some users are actually accustomed to this. Of course, if you or anyone else wants to provide a better solution, then I have no objection if they want to give it a try. In the end we're a do-ocracy. That's how we prioritize things. It is done based on what volunteers volunteer to do, where they put their effort. It is not based on the wishes of those who stand on the sidelines and suggest. Maybe for trivial fixes a mere suggestion would receive a charitable response from a programmer. But I would not count on that for more significant efforts. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 15:08 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB. However, the dots with respect to the current state and consequences for users were not connected for me until I saw Jürgen Schmidt's reply today concerning the experience of Larry Gusaas. My creation of this derivative thread was immediate. It was inspired by situation being made so clear. I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing of the system integration install versions began last week. As a matter of my *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that automatically removed previous versions, especially for a release under a reconstituted project. But that's a matter of personal principles. Your personal policy goes against the constant practice of this project for many many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the Apache OpenOffice code base. I do have the means to detect and demonstrate defects and make Bugzilla reports. I can also recommend that the advice of RGB ES and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with Larry and Jean that this is a significant policy issue. Please do. I'd love to see the BZ issues. This would make the question concrete rather than the rampant speculation I've otherwise read today. Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. It doesn't matter. It is clearly before us at this moment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
I think AOO has a problem. I think that a bad upgrade experience is a problem. I think that poor and uncivil treatment of members of the community is also a problem. On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not, as you say. that we are deleting all installed extensions. The issue is that the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions need to be reinstalled. Rob, I think you are the one who has a simple misunderstanding. This issue is being re-raised now. Are we sure that there is no way that Berkeley DB can be used? Actually, there are grve misunderstandings here, both procedural and technical., Some have taken the fact that the extensions need to be reinstalled and extrapolated that as evidence that the profiles are overwritten. The procedural error is to think that raising or re-raising an issue magically makes code happen. Subversion seems to allow it - http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#divining-bdb-version Even if it can't be used should it be possible to hack the file to get the strings? The data can't be too difficult to understand. Patches are welcome. While not a functional blocker I firmly believe that this is a significant problem for AOO and this should be addressed constructively. Patches are welcome. Please don't give me a where is the code response. Patches are welcome. I explicitly asked that you not give a where's the code repsonse, but you are uncivil enough to instead use the passive aggressive patches are welcome 3x. If you cannot be constructive then please - you don't have to respond. Please stop damaging our good work with these type of threads. Best REgards, Dave -Rob Best Regards, Dave Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect for those who looked into this issue in detail previously. But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not even as of today. And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. Overwriting OOo and
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 7:11 PM Rob Weir wrote: Actually, there are grve misunderstandings here, both procedural and technical., Some have taken the fact that the extensions need to be reinstalled and extrapolated that as evidence that the profiles are overwritten. I have never said that profiles are overwritten. I said that the extensions were deleted from the user profile. Please read what has been written before accusing people of grave misunderstandings. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: I think AOO has a problem. I think that a bad upgrade experience is a problem. I think that poor and uncivil treatment of members of the community is also a problem. On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. I have been paying attention. Have you? In the thread Calling all volunteers: It is time to test you wrote We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on clean OS installs, as upgrades to previous versions of OOo. and Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us what platform and scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to LibreOffice, etc.). I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the extensions in my user profile. Dennis started this thread [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) to discuss if releases of AOO should overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. Does this not require discussion? This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not, as you say. that we are deleting all installed extensions. The issue is that the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions need to be reinstalled. Rob, I think you are the one who has a simple misunderstanding. This issue is being re-raised now. Are we sure that there is no way that Berkeley DB can be used? Actually, there are grve misunderstandings here, both procedural and technical., Some have taken the fact that the extensions need to be reinstalled and extrapolated that as evidence that the profiles are overwritten. The procedural error is to think that raising or re-raising an issue magically makes code happen. Subversion seems to allow it - http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#divining-bdb-version Even if it can't be used should it be possible to hack the file to get the strings? The data can't be too difficult to understand. Patches are welcome. While not a functional blocker I firmly believe that this is a significant problem for AOO and this should be addressed constructively. Patches are welcome. Please don't give me a where is the code response. Patches are welcome. I explicitly asked that you not give a where's the code repsonse, but you are uncivil enough to instead use the passive aggressive patches are welcome 3x. Dave, not be honest with me. If I demanded that you not bug me, complain about something, not mention something I did, or in general tried dictate what you can or cannot say, would you do it? If so, then please stop complaining about me. If not, then why would you expect I am going to listen to you as you try to dictate what I say or don't say? -Rob If you cannot be constructive then please - you don't have to respond. Please stop damaging our good work with these type of threads. Best REgards, Dave -Rob Best Regards, Dave Those are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite, OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect for those who looked into this issue in
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 7:11 PM Rob Weir wrote: Actually, there are grve misunderstandings here, both procedural and technical., Some have taken the fact that the extensions need to be reinstalled and extrapolated that as evidence that the profiles are overwritten. I have never said that profiles are overwritten. I said that the extensions were deleted from the user profile. Please read what has been written before accusing people of grave misunderstandings. And I never said that you did. But others have. That's why I suggest we get an issue into BZ ASAP so it is clear to all what exactly we're talking about. -Rob -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 7:17 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 4:38 PM Rob Weir wrote: This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. The problem with the database was known. The fact that you were planning to release a version that overwrote OOo and erased the extensions in the user profile was not clear until you asked for testing. And now you are complaining about us reporting the problems found. Maybe not clear to you, but the information was provided in early December when the code change was made. This was not hidden. The implications of this were plainly stated, for example on the wiki page that explained the user-facing ramifications of removing the Berkeley DB: The impact is that extensions installed for older versions of OpenOffice have to be re-installed. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance+Impact Once again you are missing the point. The issue is overwriting 3.4 on the previous OOo installation and using the old user profile, which causes the deletion of all extensions from the user profile. If the user then decides to return to a earlier version, the user profiled is fucked and they have to reinstall all extensions. That would not make for a happy user. It would be better to release as AOO 3.4 and create a totally new profile rather than overwrite the program and mess up the old user profile. As for precedent, when Sun released OOo 3.0 it created a new profile and did not use the profile from OOo 2.xx, at least on Mac installs. As for you references to Microsoft updates, that is a bunch of crap. Do you really want to use Microsoft as an example? Or is that typical of IBM as well? -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 7:17 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 4:38 PM Rob Weir wrote: This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search for berkeleydb. The problem with the database was known. The fact that you were planning to release a version that overwrote OOo and erased the extensions in the user profile was not clear until you asked for testing. And now you are complaining about us reporting the problems found. Maybe not clear to you, but the information was provided in early December when the code change was made. This was not hidden. The implications of this were plainly stated, for example on the wiki page that explained the user-facing ramifications of removing the Berkeley DB: The impact is that extensions installed for older versions of OpenOffice have to be re-installed. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance+Impact Once again you are missing the point. The issue is overwriting 3.4 on the previous OOo installation and using the old user profile, which causes the deletion of all extensions from the user profile. As we said back in December, 3.4 users will need to reinstall extensions. I am not missing the point. I am the one who wrote that in the wiki back in December. If the user then decides to return to a earlier version, the user profiled is fucked and they have to reinstall all extensions. That would not make for a happy user. If a user wants to run both 3.3 and 3.4 then they can do that today. We can certainly make it clear in the install doc how a user can do this, if they wish. But I see no reason why this would or should be the default installation choice. It would be better to release as AOO 3.4 and create a totally new profile rather than overwrite the program and mess up the old user profile. Once the user has reinstalled the extensions, in what way is the old user profile messed up? Remember, not all users have extensions installed. I doubt the majority do. Why would we want all users to lose all settings just because a fraction of users need to reinstall their extensions, users who if they did reinstall the extensions would have all of there settings intact? I don't see your recommendation as optimal for users who are upgrading to AOO 3.4. As for precedent, when Sun released OOo 3.0 it created a new profile and did not use the profile from OOo 2.xx, at least on Mac installs. As for you references to Microsoft updates, that is a bunch of crap. Do you really want to use Microsoft as an example? Or is that typical of IBM as well? As I said before, the point was that requiring users to reinstall extensions is not unreasonable. It is certainly better than what you are recommending, that users must reinstall extensions but then they also lose every other setting and preference they had in their profile as well, -Rob -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 7:51 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: I have never said that profiles are overwritten. I said that the extensions were deleted from the user profile. Please read what has been written before accusing people of grave misunderstandings. And I never said that you did. But others have. That's why I suggest we get an issue into BZ ASAP so it is clear to all what exactly we're talking about. Which others have said that? I just looked through the thread and did not see anyone saying the user profile was overwritten. The issue seems clear to everyone else commenting on it. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Could the two of you get a room or something? Most of us are just waiting for this stupid conversation to end, but if you haven't figured that out yet please take this off-list. THX From: Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On 2012-03-05 7:51 PM Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: I have never said that profiles are overwritten. I said that the extensions were deleted from the user profile. Please read what has been written before accusing people of grave misunderstandings. And I never said that you did. But others have. That's why I suggest we get an issue into BZ ASAP so it is clear to all what exactly we're talking about. Which others have said that? I just looked through the thread and did not see anyone saying the user profile was overwritten. The issue seems clear to everyone else commenting on it. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: Request for a German-language mailing list
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de wrote: Hi all We from the german-nlc would like to make a new start. The de-nlc has a long history and was one of the strongest OOo nlc projects. At peak times we had over 40 Mails per day coming over the de-dev mailing list. The de site is one of the most visited at the Apache OpenOffice project, and the chance is good that we can get new volunteers. More than 72-hours have elapsed. There have been no objections, and since you are a committer now, you can take the next step, which is to enter a JIRA issue for Infra@ to set up the mailing list: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA You will need the email addresses for the moderators as well. As you know the legacy lists will be shut down in just 10 days, so please don't delay getting the new list set up or helping users migrate over. Let me know if you need any help on this. Viel Glueck mit dem neuen List! -Rob The problem is, without a mailing list it's hard to involve newcomers. The English list es not really a viable alternative - same as it wouldn't be much good to force English native speakers to follow a ML with more than 40 mails a day in Spanish for example. Non-programmers, who can do great work in QA, documentation and localization, have first to learn how this project is set up. They would feel more comfortable on a ML with less traffic and in their own language. But I'm sure many of those who join a German-language list will at some point in time also come to the ooo-dev. So it's not about splitting the community. On the contrary, it's about attracting new people to the project. We could of course setup a list outside of Apache - an alternative we have already discussed. But we need to be closer to Apache. A group outside would need very careful planning and coordination with the Apache project, and this would needlessly take up valuable time which could be put to better use. At the same time we need an up-and-running list need very soon, because the old infrastructure will be shutting down in the near future. We would very much like to know, what you think of our proposition. This proposal has been discussed on d...@de.openoffice.org, see thread http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2012-02/message/32 Actual traffic on the German-language lists are d...@de.openoffice.org: January 12, February 54 us...@de.openoffice.org: January 249, February 179 We request a list ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org We are not strongly determined to users, but discuss would be also OK, if that fits better to the common Apache praxis. Raphael Bircher and Michael Stehmann have agreed to moderate the new list. Kind regards Regina
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Mar 2012 ([ppmc])
On 03/05/2012 05:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: Thanks - signed off. On 5 March 2012 22:10, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, RGB ESrgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org: I'd love to include a line or two from the Community Forums, if there are any new stats on subscribers, questions answered, etc. Hagar added new data some days ago: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=222874#p222874 Great. Thanks. I added a link to that in the report. -Rob I thought I would update the project status page with the March board report. The openofficeorg.xml used to be in incubator/site-author/projects/, now I only see sitemap.xml there. I do see it in incubator/content/ I checked http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html but didn't see anything different. Are the build and check-in instructions the same otherwise? Best regards, Carl
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On 2012-03-05 8:17 PM Rob Weir wrote: As I said before, the point was that requiring users to reinstall extensions is not unreasonable. It is certainly better than what you are recommending, that users must reinstall extensions but then they also lose every other setting and preference they had in their profile as well, Actually, since a corrupted profile is the largest cause of problems for users of OOo and the cure is a new profile, it would be far safer for a major update like AOO 3.4 to use a completely new profile. This approach is recommended by many of the people giving support for OOo. (I've never done that myself, although I have had to replace a corrupted profile.) Since talking to you is pointless, I'll let you have the last word when you respond to this post. My points have been made and are clear to any reasonable person. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-05 8:17 PM Rob Weir wrote: As I said before, the point was that requiring users to reinstall extensions is not unreasonable. It is certainly better than what you are recommending, that users must reinstall extensions but then they also lose every other setting and preference they had in their profile as well, Actually, since a corrupted profile is the largest cause of problems for users of OOo and the cure is a new profile, it would be far safer for a major update like AOO 3.4 to use a completely new profile. This approach is recommended by many of the people giving support for OOo. (I've never done that myself, although I have had to replace a corrupted profile.) Even safer would be to reformat the hard drive and reinstall the OS. But unless the user is reporting symptoms related to corruptions, these precautions are unnecessary, and cause more user inconvenience (alienation as it has been called elsewhere in this thread) than necessary. (And yes, I have professionally supported office app users). In any case, no one has suggested we eliminate the option for users (or admins) to install to a new profile if they wish. We're not discussing that. The only thing we're discussing, is what the default should be. Should the default be: A: Lose all user settings and preferences and also require the user to reinstall extensions B: Require the user to reinstall extensions, but preserve the user settings, so after the extensions are reinstalled the user has all their settings and preferences. C. Preserve the extensions as well as the settings Ideally we'd have C. That is what we had with OOo 3.3 and 3.2. But it does not work now due to the removal of Berkeley DB. I don't think anyone (except maybe Dennis, since his concerns are orthogonal to the extensions question) would have complained if we did C. But now that we can't do C, it seems absurd to break the user entirely by picking A rather than allowing the user to easily recover with B. I'm not saying there are not uses for A. I'm glad that option is there, But it does not make sense for the default option that we break users even more than the breakage that most people on the thread are complaining that they find detrimental to users. Since talking to you is pointless, I'll let you have the last word when you respond to this post. My points have been made and are clear to any reasonable person. -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Mar 2012 ([ppmc])
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org wrote: On 03/05/2012 05:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: Thanks - signed off. On 5 March 2012 22:10, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, RGB ESrgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/3/5 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org: I'd love to include a line or two from the Community Forums, if there are any new stats on subscribers, questions answered, etc. Hagar added new data some days ago: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=222874#p222874 Great. Thanks. I added a link to that in the report. -Rob I thought I would update the project status page with the March board report. The openofficeorg.xml used to be in incubator/site-author/projects/, now I only see sitemap.xml there. I do see it in incubator/content/ I checked http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html but didn't see anything different. Are the build and check-in instructions the same otherwise? Our instructions under PPMC FAQs) need to be updated. There was a thread on this on the Incubator general list just recently. Essentially the Incubator website has been CMS-enabled. So you should be able to edit the XML file using the CMS bookmarklet and publish it directly: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects/openofficeorg.xml So just like editing our podling website. I have not tried this myself. Let us know how it works. -Rob Best regards, Carl
[EXTENSIONS]: problems with uploading oxt to http://aoo-extensions.sourceforge.net/en/extension/
Dear all, I build an extension with Netbean6.8 + OpenOffice API plugin, All functions in the extension work well on the last developer snapshot build. But when I try to upload it to AOO extension site( http://aoo-extensions.sourceforge.net/en/extension/upload/), a error occur. It said in the upload page: No extension file was provided. The attachments are the description xml file and issue screenshot. Do anyone meet this issue before? How to fix it? ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !--Created with OpenOffice.org API plug-in for NetBeans Version 2.0.6-- description xmlns=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink; version value=1.2.0/ identifier value=com.sample.test/ extension-description src lang=en xlink:href=images/description.txt/ /extension-description publisher name lang=en xlink:href=http://www.mytest.com;My Test/name /publisher icon default xlink:href=images/mytest.png/ /icon registration simple-license accept-by=admin default-license-id=en-US license-text lang=en-US license-id=en-US xlink:href=images/license_en.txt/ /simple-license /registration /description
Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
2012/3/6 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org:
B: Require the user to reinstall extensions, but preserve the user
settings, so after the extensions are reinstalled the user has all
their settings and preferences.
The office removes extension directories which are not registered in the pmap
file during start up. But contents created for extension packages placed
under uno_packages/registry are still there and they are shown, for example
menu integration of the extension packages.
After re-installation of extensions, they are still alive. So they
have to be removed
before re-installing extensions.
I wrote migration script to convert db file to pmap using Berkeley db
package in Python.
But this kind of migration working out of the office have to be done before
the first running of 3.4.
Regards,
#! /bin/env python
import bsddb
from optparse import OptionParser
import os
import os.path
import re
import platform
__doc__ = There is no file spacification for uno_packages.db
and uno_packages.pmap but you can find its implementation in
main/desktop/source/deployment/dp_persmap.cxx of the source code.
def get_items(packages):
Open Berkeley database file and read its content.
# Format of uno_packages.db
# Berkeley detabase
# Ignore white spaces in key and value
# key: 0xFF EXTENSION_ID
# value: TEMP_NAME 0xFF PACKAGE_NAME 0xFF PACKAGE_MIME_TYPE 0xFF
VERSION 0xFF 0
# The last value is always zero in value because of it is not used
anymore.
items = {}
d = bsddb.hashopen(packages + .db, r)
for k, v in d.iteritems():
items[k] = v
d.close()
return items
def write_pmap(packages, items):
Write to pmap file.
# Format of uno_packages.pmap
# file header: Pmp1
# Ignore white space in the body.
# body: key \n value \n
# file footer: \n
# The 00 ... 0F are replaced with %0 ... %F and
# % is replaced with %% in key and value.
magic = Pmp1
regexp =
re.compile((\x00|\x01|\x02|\x03|\x04|\x05|\x06|\x07|\x08|\x09|\x0a|\x0b|\x0c|\x0d|\x0e|\x0f|%))
def encode(m):
# 00 ... 0F - %0 ... %F, % - %%
c = m.group(0)
if c == %:
return %%
else:
n = ord(c)
if n 0x09:
return %%%s % chr(0x30 + n)
else:
return %%%s % chr(0x37 + n)
lines = []
for k, v in items.iteritems():
lines.append(regexp.sub(encode, k))
lines.append(regexp.sub(encode, v))
lines.append(\n)
f = open(packages + .pmap, w)
f.write(magic)
f.write(\n.join(lines))
f.flush()
f.close()
def main():
Tries to convert uno_packages.db to pmap.
USER_KEY = user
if os.sep == /:
data_dir = os.path.join(~, .openoffice.org)
elif platform.system() == Windows:
release = platform.release()
if release == XP or release == 2000:
data_dir = os.path.join(~, Application Data, OpenOffice.org)
else:
data_dir = os.path.join(~, AppData, OpenOffice.org)
parser = OptionParser()
parser.add_option(-u, dest=USER_KEY,
help=Data directory of the office. Default: %s % data_dir)
parser.set_default(USER_KEY, data_dir)
options, args = parser.parse_args()
packages_dir = os.path.join(
os.path.expanduser(getattr(options, USER_KEY)),
3, user,
uno_packages, cache)
# check user directory is exist
if not os.path.exists(packages_dir):
print(Error: %s is not found. % packages_dir)
return
packages_path = os.path.join(packages_dir, uno_packages)
items = get_items(packages_path)
write_pmap(packages_path, items)
if __name__ == __main__:
main()
