Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On 16.08.2012 19:59, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 16, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 16.08.2012 00:46, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. 1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years. But I think I remember that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build instruction pages. 2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it? It exists under this name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I would say that it is fairly well tested. But that does not mean that it is error free. 3. Please have a look at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO. Maybe that page is more helpful. If not, please help me to improve it. That page *IS* much better! To handle my case it would be good to suggest that a user upgrade their Perl dependencies. That path != install. What did you do exactly? Something like install CPAN; reload cpan ? As long as the READMEs links get a user to eventually get to this MWiki page that would be great! I have changed the README (on trunk) to point to the new building guide and cleaned it up a bit. I will try to make a clean install on Mac. The problem is to lay hands on a pristine Mac environment. I recently read that from MacOSX Lion on it is legal to run a copy of it in a virtual environment on (as long as that runs on Apple hardware). So I will set up a Mountain Lion VM and write down what has to be done to build AOO. -Andre [...]
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On 16.08.2012 00:46, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. 1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years. But I think I remember that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build instruction pages. 2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it? It exists under this name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I would say that it is fairly well tested. But that does not mean that it is error free. 3. Please have a look at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO. Maybe that page is more helpful. If not, please help me to improve it. -Andre My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite. Regards, Dave //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On 8/16/12 5:08 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users. The phrase convenience binary does not exist anywhere on the IPMC website. What is said is Many would argue that for open source projects, the source package is the release: binaries are just for convenience. But Many would say does not a policy make. The same page also says of binaries, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release. The IPMC will be voting for the the release of source and binaries. This includes verifying that the LICENSE and NOTICE in the binaries are correct. If you recall we had a delay in our first release due to errors in these files in the binaries. If we were not voting for them, and if they were not official, then we would not have needed to fix and rebuild before voting. I've seen the same occur in other projects, where the binaries where JAR's.. So even from the IPMC perspective there are properties of the binaries that require verification and which have policy implication. We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On 8/16/12 1:48 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions Dave, Did you see this page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-buildflags That has the build steps and flags used for the binaries we'll be releasing. There is no single right way to build AOO. There are variations that will enable or disable various optional features. But if you want the same thing as what is in the release, the above link has the info you want. This should be linked to from the source package README and also on the 4 build mwiki pages that are linked to from the source. For now yes but in the future I would change the README to link to the new AOO Building Guide and would link to the used flags for our binary builds from there. I won't know until tomorrow because my cpan config is broken and I now need LWP::UserAgent to download the external dependencies. what exactly is your problem Dave, I am sure we can help you. It seems that we have a lot of room for improvements to insert further checks etc. and to update the documentation. @Rob, do we have any statistics about download numbers of the src release? Juergen
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 09:30:13AM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. 1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years. But I think I remember that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build instruction pages. 2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it? It exists under this name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I would say that it is fairly well tested. But that does not mean that it is error free. He might have found something similar to this: http://markmail.org/message/pqre775ds3m4y3jg He has LWP::UserAgent but it's too old, a method is missing, so he tries to update the module with cpan. Updating Perl like this may brake other things in your system, I prefer keeping the system as it came, and install a local perl version. IMO there is no fix for this: we check the perl version, we check the presence of LWP::UserAgent, but: does it make sense to check the LWP::UserAgent version too? Is it possible at all? The perl module does not document when a specific method was introduced, or I least I couldn't find that info in http://search.cpan.org/~gaas/libwww-perl-6.04/lib/LWP/UserAgent.pm there is not such thing as a @since tag. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgp6pATQV9mzw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On 16.08.2012 12:48, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 09:30:13AM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. 1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years. But I think I remember that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build instruction pages. 2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it? It exists under this name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I would say that it is fairly well tested. But that does not mean that it is error free. He might have found something similar to this: http://markmail.org/message/pqre775ds3m4y3jg Hm, I did not perceive this as a persisting problem. It seemed to have a simple solution. He has LWP::UserAgent but it's too old, a method is missing, so he tries to update the module with cpan. Updating Perl like this may brake other things in your system, I prefer keeping the system as it came, and install a local perl version. If that is really the problem and updating Perl really is such a problem (I never experienced it as one) then I could try to make the use of LWP::UserAgent more compatible with older versions. The biggest problem might be to lay hands on such old versions in a running system. IMO there is no fix for this: we check the perl version, we check the presence of LWP::UserAgent, but: does it make sense to check the LWP::UserAgent version too? Is it possible at all? The perl module does not document when a specific method was introduced, or I least I couldn't find that info in http://search.cpan.org/~gaas/libwww-perl-6.04/lib/LWP/UserAgent.pm there is not such thing as a @since tag. First we have to identify this as a real problem. Then we (I, you, or anybody else) are certainly able to find a solution. We might even use an alternative to LWP::UserAgent. -Andre
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 18:06 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users. At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release. We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are of high quality and that they work, but we are relying on others in the project to come up with that in aggregate - none of us have every environment - none of us understand every language. This is a different standard. We are certifying that the source release when built produces these artifacts and that they are useful to users. We can consider how to treat the word Official or Certified around platform builds that may be called Apache OpenOffice as opposed to Powered by Apache OpenOffice. This certainly gets into the area of digital signatures which is fast becoming a topic for multiple projects at The ASF. And yes the quality is about the control of the build. Does that help? NO The ASF stands behind the actual binary release as official or not, it is not a niggling point in my mind. What does that mean - it means that a binary will be kept available (not just the source), it means that a security fix is not
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:27 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 18:06 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users. At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release. We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are of high quality and that they work, but we are relying on others in the project to come up with that in aggregate - none of us have every environment - none of us understand every language. This is a different standard. We are certifying that the source release when built produces these artifacts and that they are useful to users. We can consider how to treat the word Official or Certified around platform builds that may be called Apache OpenOffice as opposed to Powered by Apache OpenOffice. This certainly gets into the area of digital signatures which is fast becoming a topic for multiple projects at The ASF. And yes the quality is about the control of the build. Does that help? NO The ASF stands behind the actual binary release as official or not, it is not a niggling point in my mind. What does that mean - it means that a binary will be kept available (not just the
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: snip @Rob, do we have any statistics about download numbers of the src release? From Google Analytics I see: aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.bz22,073 aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz 1,148 aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.zip 620 But I assume most developers who are serious about the source code would check it out directly from Subversion. I don't have numbers for that. As we know there have been over 11 million downloads of the binaries in this same time period (since May). I assume the ratio would be similar for other end-user facing open source projects, like Firefox, 7-ZIP, etc. But projects that are developer-oriented, delivering libraries, probably have a different ratio, one that has a larger proportion of source downloads. -Rob Juergen
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 16.08.2012 12:48, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 09:30:13AM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. 1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years. But I think I remember that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build instruction pages. 2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it? It exists under this name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I would say that it is fairly well tested. But that does not mean that it is error free. He might have found something similar to this: http://markmail.org/message/pqre775ds3m4y3jg Hm, I did not perceive this as a persisting problem. It seemed to have a simple solution. That was exactly the trouble. Somewhere in the build guide this should highlighted under Perl Dependencies. The other part is that it should describe the proper cpan commands. I basically ended up with my permissions modified on cpan. I fixed this and then I had to upgrade LWP::UserAgent The building guide needs to be oriented towards a rather neophyte developer. Already we getting the guides lined up with the README. He has LWP::UserAgent but it's too old, a method is missing, so he tries to update the module with cpan. Updating Perl like this may brake other things in your system, I prefer keeping the system as it came, and install a local perl version. If that is really the problem and updating Perl really is such a problem (I never experienced it as one) then I could try to make the use of LWP::UserAgent more compatible with older versions. The biggest problem might be to lay hands on such old versions in a running system. Having clear update LWP::UserAgent instructions for those who don't know cpan would be enough. Regards, Dave IMO there is no fix for this: we check the perl version, we check the presence of LWP::UserAgent, but: does it make sense to check the LWP::UserAgent version too? Is it possible at all? The perl module does not document when a specific method was introduced, or I least I couldn't find that info in http://search.cpan.org/~gaas/libwww-perl-6.04/lib/LWP/UserAgent.pm there is not such thing as a @since tag. First we have to identify this as a real problem. Then we (I, you, or anybody else) are certainly able to find a solution. We might even use an alternative to LWP::UserAgent. -Andre
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 16, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 16.08.2012 00:46, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. 1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years. But I think I remember that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build instruction pages. 2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it? It exists under this name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I would say that it is fairly well tested. But that does not mean that it is error free. 3. Please have a look at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO. Maybe that page is more helpful. If not, please help me to improve it. That page *IS* much better! To handle my case it would be good to suggest that a user upgrade their Perl dependencies. That path != install. As long as the READMEs links get a user to eventually get to this MWiki page that would be great! A link to a separate page about checking NOTICE, LICENSE and running Rat might be helpful, but that is another thread. Best Regards, Dave -Andre My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite. Regards, Dave //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer,
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite. Regards, Dave //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. Also this is actually a good distinction and an evolution as it gives possible sanction to stuff like: (LEGAL-144) Request for permission for CloudStack to distribute secondary convenience builds containing libvirt-java (LGPL) The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite. Regards, Dave //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. A citation, please? The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. That phrase is also used in the release management guidelines as an explanation for why binary-only release are not permitted. But the same guidelines talk extensively about including binary packages in releases. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sure. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. OK. My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite. Yes, but please stop with inflammatory statements that have in the past been repeated by others, outside of the project, as a source of FUD against the project. We really don't need more of this. We all care about the source. But let's not diminish the importance or the status of the binaries. Regards, -Rob Regards, Dave //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be unofficial convenience artifacts. A citation, please? You would need to be listening to the evolving conversations on general@ and legal-discuss@ Documentation is always behind that. Sorry. The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered. That phrase is also used in the release management guidelines as an explanation for why binary-only release are not permitted. But the same guidelines talk extensively about including binary packages in releases. So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF Member must measure their vote on. Sure. Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new download_external_dependencies.pl properly. OK. My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite. Yes, but please stop with inflammatory statements that have in the past been repeated by others, outside of the project, as a source of FUD against the project. We really don't need more of this. We all care about the source. But let's not diminish the importance or the status of the binaries. No let's not. The BINARIES are VERY IMPORTANT! But they are not so important that we neglect to help people build from source. Now, I better eat and get my blood sugar in shape.. Regards, Dave Regards, -Rob Regards, Dave //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions Dave, Did you see this page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-buildflags That has the build steps and flags used for the binaries we'll be releasing. There is no single right way to build AOO. There are variations that will enable or disable various optional features. But if you want the same thing as what is in the release, the above link has the info you want. -Rob BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) ) /tj/ (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:31 PM, TJ Frazier wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Yes, this was one of the ways that the evolution in what is meant by official releases. It is also allowing for more pragmatic consumption of other licenses in convenience binaries. This may (or may not) be related to the Oracle vs. Google case. Regards, Dave (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) ) /tj/ (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions Dave, Did you see this page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-buildflags That has the build steps and flags used for the binaries we'll be releasing. There is no single right way to build AOO. There are variations that will enable or disable various optional features. But if you want the same thing as what is in the release, the above link has the info you want. This should be linked to from the source package README and also on the 4 build mwiki pages that are linked to from the source. I won't know until tomorrow because my cpan config is broken and I now need LWP::UserAgent to download the external dependencies. Regards, Dave -Rob BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. -Rob (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) ) /tj/ (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users. At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release. We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are of high quality and that they work, but we are relying on others in the project to come up with that in aggregate - none of us have every environment - none of us understand every language. This is a different standard. We are certifying that the source release when built produces these artifacts and that they are useful to users. We can consider how to treat the word Official or Certified around platform builds that may be called Apache OpenOffice as opposed to Powered by Apache OpenOffice. This certainly gets into the area of digital signatures which is fast becoming a topic for multiple projects at The ASF. And yes the quality is about the control of the build. Does that help? Regards, Dave -Rob (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) ) /tj/ (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users. The phrase convenience binary does not exist anywhere on the IPMC website. What is said is Many would argue that for open source projects, the source package is the release: binaries are just for convenience. But Many would say does not a policy make. The same page also says of binaries, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release. The IPMC will be voting for the the release of source and binaries. This includes verifying that the LICENSE and NOTICE in the binaries are correct. If you recall we had a delay in our first release due to errors in these files in the binaries. If we were not voting for them, and if they were not official, then we would not have needed to fix and rebuild before voting. I've seen the same occur in other projects, where the binaries where JAR's.. So even from the IPMC perspective there are properties of the binaries that require verification and which have policy implication. We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are of high quality and that they work, but we are relying on others in the project to come up with
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. That is your opinion, expressed loudly; it is not Apache or IPMC policy. We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected and these will be part of the official release. The IPMC doc calls the source artifacts canonical, but the same docs talk about binaries being included in the official release as well. In fact, it says of binary packages, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. Obviously you have your own opinion on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members have a different opinion. -Rob Rob, Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ... Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise. ASF practice, both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC wishes to do so. The general discussion has gone far beyond whether or not we release binaries or whether they are official. We're now discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed. Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open source. But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user application, something no other Apache project has previously attempted. So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to long-held practices and habits for some Apache members. But this is fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the public good. I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be. If this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries). This is absolutely false. Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users. The phrase convenience binary does not exist anywhere on the IPMC website. What is said is Many would argue that for open source projects, the source package is the release: binaries are just for convenience. But Many would say does not a policy make. The same page also says of binaries, For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does not. At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release. The IPMC will be voting for the the release of source and binaries. This includes verifying that the LICENSE and NOTICE in the binaries are correct. If you recall we had a delay in our first release due to errors in these files in the binaries. If we were not voting for them, and if they were not official, then we would not have needed to fix and rebuild before voting. I've seen the same occur in other projects, where the binaries where JAR's.. So even from the IPMC perspective there are properties of the binaries that require verification and which have policy implication. We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are
