Re: Starting a conversation on AOOo 4.0
I'm not so sure that further differentiation between AOO and LO is such a good idea. The Document Foundation with LO was started because some people didn't trust Oracle. Now that the code base is being transferred to ASF, and it looks like ASF is taking its responsibility for OOo seriously (from the outsider's point of view), the need for a separate LO may disappear. There is some concern that the community will split over the differences between the two versions, and a big difference in the user interface won't make that better. And if OOo users want to help LO users in the forums, that will be easier the more the two programs resemble each other in look and feel. A very different reason to keep things as they are that it always takes time to get used to a new UI. I _hate_ the most recent changes in the UI of most browsers, that make finding the options screen almost impossible, and that only because the designers wanted to get rid of the menu bar. We still work with the qwerty keyboard, that has been designed to slow typists down, so I can't find a good reason to change a working UI. Thank you, Peter aka floris v Op 22-9-2011 19:28, Guy Waterval schreef: Hi all, 2011/9/21 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org I don't want to distract us too much for the 3.4.0 work. There is a lot of work to do, mainly around the detailed work of IP review. However, I think we should have a parallel conversation, with project contributors as well as with users, about what we could do after that, in a major release. Perhaps time is coming to try to change the interface. We've now two projects LO and AOO which have the same look and it's perhaps not so good. I think a new look for AOO could give it a better identitiy and could be more attactive for the mass of the end users as the old one. But as I'm not a coder, I don't know if this could be easily realisable. Best regards gw
Re: consolidation of Windows Build software requirements
Hi Mathias, On 22.09.2011 22:35, Mathias Bauer wrote: Am 21.09.2011 12:07, schrieb Martin Hollmichel: Hi, Am 20.09.2011 12:26, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Hi, [...] I will start working on a consolidation of the Windows Build software requirements as given on http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows: - get rid of dependence on unicows.dll This will have some impact wrt system requirements ? Which Windows version will be affected by this change ? -- take over issue 88652 (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=88652) from Mathias and perform the given tasks. - get rid of dependence on instmsiw.exe and instmsia.exe also this will iirc have some dependencies wrt system requirements, what do you consider as minimum Windows baseline ? I would be fine with a XP System SP2, Why not SP3? Really, SP2 is a totally outdated system. I am not recognizing in my mind which service packs are available for which Windows version. I am only repeating Martin here thinking that SP2 was the latest SP for Win XP. Thus, no reason special reason for Win XP SP2. My opinion is that we should always rely on the most updated version of an operating system which we want to support. Thus, for Windows XP it should be Win XP SP3, if this is the most updated version. Besides that, we don't need unicows.dll on any Windows XP installation, WinXP is UniCode enabled. unicows.dll ist just for Win9x. That is what I understand from the comments which you have been made in issue 88652. Maybe you mixed unicows.dll with the notorious uwinapi.dll that at least has some value on WinXP, though it's unclear how much. Hm... Why do you think I am mixing unicows.dll with uwinapi.dll? I am only planning to perform the stuff which is mentioned in issue 88652 regarding unicows.dll. Best regards, Oliver.
[DISCUSSION] start collecting the correct content for a NOTICE.txt file
Hi, for an official release we will need a NOTICE.txt file in the repository besides all other necessary changes in the code ... It may be a good idea to start working on such a file now and collect all the necessary information over time during the preparation of our first release. I've looked for such a NOTICE.txt file and adapted one for our purpose. It's far from being complete and probably the Oracle entry (not necessary) can be replaced by others. The home of this file would be ../trunk/NOTICE.txt. Opinions? Juergen ### = == NOTICE file corresponding to section 4(d) of the Apache License, == == Version 2.0, in this case for the Apache Open Office distribution. == = Apache Open Office Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). = Portions of this software was originally based on the following: - software copyright (c) 1999-2011, Oracle, http://www.oracle.com. = The binary distribution package (ie. binaries, jars, and documentation) of this product includes software developed by the following: - The Apache Software Foundation - ??? - see LICENSE.txt - ??? - ??? - see LICENSE.txt = The source distribution package (ie. all source and tools required to build Open Office) of this product includes software developed by the following: - The Apache Software Foundation - ??? - see LICENSE.txt - ??? - ??? - see LICENSE.txt ###
Re: consolidation of Windows Build software requirements
On 9/23/11 2:55 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: I am not recognizing in my mind which service packs are available for which Windows version. I am only repeating Martin here thinking that SP2 was the latest SP for Win XP. Thus, no reason special reason for Win XP SP2. My opinion is that we should always rely on the most updated version of an operating system which we want to support. Thus, for Windows XP it should be Win XP SP3, if this is the most updated version. Well... Sp3 has a nasty side effect. You might remember that MS introduced a change that made desktops black for software that they considered as not original. Sp2is still widely used and installed in low specs computers in developing countries where no licensed copies of MS exist (and where the use of unlicensed copies of software is not illegal). These computers are a part of OOo's market. In any case, I do not think that SP2 and SP3 will be very different. Cheers, Javier
Re: consolidation of Windows Build software requirements
On 9/23/11 4:39 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote: Sp2is still widely used and installed in low specs computers in developing countries where no licensed copies of MS exist (and where the use of unlicensed copies of software is not illegal). These computers are a part of OOo's market. Sorry if I am missing something, but why wouldn't these people use an unlicensed copy (cracked if necessary) of the real thing, i.e. MS Office, then, if it is not illegal? Imagine trying to convince them to use OOo: OK, I see you are using an unlicensed copy of Windows, oh well, that is legal in your country, and MS is evil anyway, so I don't mind. Now, look at what I have here, lovely office software which is almost as good as MS Office, and it doesn't cost anything! And it is Open Source! Don't you want to use it, please? Please? Hi Tor, Yes you are missing something ;-) You are assuming here that MS Windows is better than OpenOffice. In this case it is a wrong assumption. In Cambodia, for example, OpenOffice is in the local language (Khmer), it has a nice spell-checker, sorts words correctly in Khmer, uses Khmer dates, and it is mandatory in the education system. Why would you want to use MS Office in English (sorry, no Khmer, formats or spell-checker) in your Windows XP SP2, when you can use a program that it is easy to learn, it is in your language and it helps you write? ;-) Cheers, Javier --tml
Re: consolidation of Windows Build software requirements
Yes you are missing something ;-) You are assuming here that MS Windows is better than OpenOffice. In this case it is a wrong assumption. Oooh, good for OOo then. --tml
Re: Buildbreaker on Mac
On 22.09.2011 20:03, Raphael Bircher wrote: I was making two update of the AOOo Source tree today. The Build from this morning was succesfull. But this evening after the commit from hdu (I think the one for alg) I have had a build braker. Here is the Log: http://pastebin.com/dLSfn9vS https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=108641 = http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1174172view=rev The pasted error log is too coarse. It mentions that some modules (unoxml and i18npool) need to be rebuilt. So in general it would have been a good idea to go into each of the modules and build there. With the result that the first hit in the issue tracker search helped to solve the problem. Herbert
Re: opendocument-users discussion list at OASIS
I have subscribed. Thanks for sharing this list, Rob. It will be helpful for me to enhance my skills and knowledge. 2011/9/23 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org We have an OASIS mailing, opendocument-us...@oasis-open.org, to provide an open forum for developers to exchange ideas and information on implementing ODF. I invite you to subscribe via the web interface here: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ There are other, formal, ways of giving feedback on the ODF standard to OASIS, and OASIS members on this list (Dennis, Don and myself) can help us navigate that process when we have formal proposals. But the opendocument-users is a place where interested parties can interact with other implementors of the ODF standard. I'd encourage you to join if you have an interest in the ODF file format. Regards, -Rob -- -Devin
Re: [DISCUSSION] start collecting the correct content for a NOTICE.txt file
2011/9/23 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: Hi, for an official release we will need a NOTICE.txt file in the repository besides all other necessary changes in the code ... It may be a good idea to start working on such a file now and collect all the necessary information over time during the preparation of our first release. Good idea. Thanks. Perhaps we also transfer the notices from /trunk/core/readlicense_oo/html/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREAMDE.html to NOTICE.txt ? Or at least the notices for components that have compatible licenses. -Rob I've looked for such a NOTICE.txt file and adapted one for our purpose. It's far from being complete and probably the Oracle entry (not necessary) can be replaced by others. The home of this file would be ../trunk/NOTICE.txt. Opinions? Juergen ### = == NOTICE file corresponding to section 4(d) of the Apache License, == == Version 2.0, in this case for the Apache Open Office distribution. == = Apache Open Office Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). = Portions of this software was originally based on the following: - software copyright (c) 1999-2011, Oracle, http://www.oracle.com. = The binary distribution package (ie. binaries, jars, and documentation) of this product includes software developed by the following: - The Apache Software Foundation - ??? - see LICENSE.txt - ??? - ??? - see LICENSE.txt = The source distribution package (ie. all source and tools required to build Open Office) of this product includes software developed by the following: - The Apache Software Foundation - ??? - see LICENSE.txt - ??? - ??? - see LICENSE.txt ###
Re: Starting a conversation on AOOo 4.0
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:39 AM, floris v floris...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure that further differentiation between AOO and LO is such a good idea. The Document Foundation with LO was started because some people didn't trust Oracle. Now that the code base is being transferred to ASF, and it looks like ASF is taking its responsibility for OOo seriously (from the outsider's point of view), the need for a separate LO may disappear. There is some concern that the community will split over the differences between the two versions, and a big difference in the user interface won't make that better. And if OOo users want to help LO users in the forums, that will be easier the more the two programs resemble each other in look and feel. From what I can see (and I see more than is public at this point) the investment in AOOo is soon going to be greater than what is in LO. These developers will not be very interested in sitting around, doing nothing, moving no faster than what LO can do. It is natural, as AOOo grows, for it to evolve quickly, bring more innovation, and leave other forks behind. I don't think we can or should try to avoid this. Of course, there are ways to reduce the pain of divergence. For example, LO can take improvements from AOOo and merge them into LO. The Apache license encourages this. LO could also end its fork, and put their development effort on the AOOo project. They would be welcome here, as long-lost brothers. A very different reason to keep things as they are that it always takes time to get used to a new UI. I _hate_ the most recent changes in the UI of most browsers, that make finding the options screen almost impossible, and that only because the designers wanted to get rid of the menu bar. We still work with the qwerty keyboard, that has been designed to slow typists down, so I can't find a good reason to change a working UI. Good point. We don't want to make changes just because we can make changes. We want a purpose. Many users spend hours each day in front of their spreadsheets or word processor. They develop muscle memory for every command keystroke, and play their word processor like a piano. We don't want to upset that. On the other hand, most of our potential users are using MS Office, and they have radically changed their UI -Rob Thank you, Peter aka floris v Op 22-9-2011 19:28, Guy Waterval schreef: Hi all, 2011/9/21 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org I don't want to distract us too much for the 3.4.0 work. There is a lot of work to do, mainly around the detailed work of IP review. However, I think we should have a parallel conversation, with project contributors as well as with users, about what we could do after that, in a major release. Perhaps time is coming to try to change the interface. We've now two projects LO and AOO which have the same look and it's perhaps not so good. I think a new look for AOO could give it a better identitiy and could be more attactive for the mass of the end users as the old one. But as I'm not a coder, I don't know if this could be easily realisable. Best regards gw
Re: Starting a conversation on AOOo 4.0
On 23/09/2011 15:28, Rob Weir wrote: We don't want to upset that. On the other hand, most of our potential users are using MS Office, and they have radically changed their UI... Yes, with many pro's and con's but we still have the 1 milion question: Must aOO or/and LO be a copy of the MS Office and his UI ? Greetz Fernand -Rob Thank you, Peter aka floris v Op 22-9-2011 19:28, Guy Waterval schreef: Hi all, 2011/9/21 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org I don't want to distract us too much for the 3.4.0 work. There is a lot of work to do, mainly around the detailed work of IP review. However, I think we should have a parallel conversation, with project contributors as well as with users, about what we could do after that, in a major release. Perhaps time is coming to try to change the interface. We've now two projects LO and AOO which have the same look and it's perhaps not so good. I think a new look for AOO could give it a better identitiy and could be more attactive for the mass of the end users as the old one. But as I'm not a coder, I don't know if this could be easily realisable. Best regards gw
Re: Starting a conversation on AOOo 4.0
On 23/09/2011 15:28, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:39 AM, floris vfloris...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure that further differentiation between AOO and LO is such a good idea. The Document Foundation with LO was started because some people didn't trust Oracle. Now that the code base is being transferred to ASF, and it looks like ASF is taking its responsibility for OOo seriously (from the outsider's point of view), the need for a separate LO may disappear. There is some concern that the community will split over the differences between the two versions, and a big difference in the user interface won't make that better. And if OOo users want to help LO users in the forums, that will be easier the more the two programs resemble each other in look and feel. From what I can see (and I see more than is public at this point) the investment in AOOo is soon going to be greater than what is in LO. These developers will not be very interested in sitting around, When these developers are paid, they can start to tackle the most annoying bugs, this will make (100% sure) aOOo better ! doing nothing, moving no faster than what LO can do. It is natural, as AOOo grows, for it to evolve quickly, bring more innovation, and leave other forks behind. I don't think we can or should try to avoid this. Of course, there are ways to reduce the pain of divergence. For example, LO can take improvements from AOOo and merge them into LO. The Apache license encourages this. LO could also end its fork, and put their development effort on the AOOo project. They would be welcome here, as long-lost brothers. A very different reason to keep things as they are that it always takes time to get used to a new UI. I _hate_ the most recent changes in the UI of most browsers, that make finding the options screen almost impossible, and that only because the designers wanted to get rid of the menu bar. We still work with the qwerty keyboard, that has been designed to slow typists down, so I can't find a good reason to change a working UI. Good point. We don't want to make changes just because we can make changes. We want a purpose. Many users spend hours each day in front of their spreadsheets or word processor. They develop muscle memory for every command keystroke, and play their word processor like a piano. We don't want to upset that. On the other hand, most of our potential users are using MS Office, and they have radically changed their UI -Rob Thank you, Peter aka floris v Op 22-9-2011 19:28, Guy Waterval schreef: Hi all, 2011/9/21 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org I don't want to distract us too much for the 3.4.0 work. There is a lot of work to do, mainly around the detailed work of IP review. However, I think we should have a parallel conversation, with project contributors as well as with users, about what we could do after that, in a major release. Perhaps time is coming to try to change the interface. We've now two projects LO and AOO which have the same look and it's perhaps not so good. I think a new look for AOO could give it a better identitiy and could be more attactive for the mass of the end users as the old one. But as I'm not a coder, I don't know if this could be easily realisable. Best regards gw
Re: Starting a conversation on AOOo 4.0
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Fernand Vanrie s...@pmgroup.be wrote: On 23/09/2011 15:28, Rob Weir wrote: We don't want to upset that. On the other hand, most of our potential users are using MS Office, and they have radically changed their UI... Yes, with many pro's and con's but we still have the 1 milion question: Must aOO or/and LO be a copy of the MS Office and his UI ? mmh, no direct answer. I would prefer if we are trying to provide the best and most intuitive solution to fulfill a specific task or to make new features as easy as possible available. Simplicity combined with effectiveness is what counts in the end and what will bring us new users and make existing users happy. Juergen Greetz Fernand
Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7
Another request to build AOOo on 10.7 is to solve the special issue on Mac 10.7. 2011/9/23 Chao Huang chao.de...@gmail.com: hi, Nakata The latested Mac machine can not install 10.6 and 10.5. So if I want to debug AOOo on that machine, I have to pass the full build on 10.7 firstly. Apple disabled JDK1.5 on 10.6 and cast off gcc-4.0 in Mac 10.7. In my opinion, it's a gradual request to upgrade the build env to gcc-4.2 and JDK1.6. 2011/9/23 Maho NAKATA m...@apache.org: Hi Chao Huang, just curious but why do you want to build on OSX 10.7 Lion? I have been building on Tiger (10.4) but many builds on Leopard. I think you should better start on older OS. Thanks Nakata Maho From: Chao Huang chao.de...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:23:17 +0800 hi, Michael Thank you a lot for sharing this kind of helpful information. I will have a try and share the result with you. 2011/9/22 Michael Stahl m...@openoffice.org: On 22.09.2011 08:49, Chao Huang wrote: hi, all On Mac OS X 10.7, I'm trying to build AOOo in following steps as I did on Mac OS 10.6/10.5 : 4) there will be a break with error message (due to the restriction of gcc version 4.0 in configure) checking for gcc... /usr/bin/gcc checking the GNU gcc compiler version... configure: error: You need to use the gcc-4.0 compiler (gcc 4.2.1 won't work with the MacOSX10.4u.sdk) - set CC accordingly It seems like that there is only gcc-4.2.1 in Mac OS X 10.7 with Xcode 4.1. The MacOSX10.4u.sdk is not supported by Mac OS X 10.7. There are only MacOSX10.6.sdk and MacOSX10.7.sdk under dir /Developer/SDKs. $ ls /usr/bin/gcc* /usr/bin/gcc /usr/bin/gcc-4.2 it is apparently possible to download and install the OS X 10.4 SDK even on OS X 10.7. http://catacombae.blogspot.com/2011/07/installing-xcode-326-in-mac-os-x-lion.html I'm going to remove the gcc-4.0 restriction and restart building. there was a discussion some time ago on a different mailing list on this topic; it should give you some ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of doing this: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/14099 Is there anyone who built out AOOo successfully on Mac OS X 10.7 (Intel) ? Thanks! haven't heard of anybody doing that. regards, michael -- Chao Huang -- Chao Huang -- Chao Huang
Re[2]: ooo-myspell at apache-extras.org
22 сентября 2011, 20:29 от Pedro F. Giffuni: HunSpell is copyleft so we cannot include it. Hi! Hunspell is C++ library under GPL/LGPL/MPL tri-license. (http://hunspell.sourceforge.net/). What license is required for dictionaries in AOOo? Can you include Russian spellcheck dictionary in AOOo? See https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=113873 -- Yakov Reztsov
Re: Re[2]: ooo-myspell at apache-extras.org
Hi Yakov; --- On Fri, 9/23/11, Yakov Reztsov yakovr...@mail.ru wrote: 22 сентября 2011, 20:29 от Pedro F. Giffuni: HunSpell is copyleft so we cannot include it. Hi! Hunspell is C++ library under GPL/LGPL/MPL tri-license. (http://hunspell.sourceforge.net/). http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html My interpretation: GPL we won't take, MPL we will leave outside the tree. AL2 is best. What license is required for dictionaries in AOOo? We are not sure yet if AOOo will carry dictionaries but if we do they will be subject to the link above. Can you include Russian spellcheck dictionary in AOOo? See https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=113873 The license looks good to me, we can use it. thanks, Pedro.
Re: Starting a conversation on AOOo 4.0
Hello, 2011/9/23 Shao Zhi Zhao zhaos...@cn.ibm.com hi, IBM symphony will contribute to Apache, it has good UI,it will be fit to your requirement. I know, I use Symphony and it's really a piece of cake. Many thanks for the great job. gw
Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7
default installation of Lion on many machines are 64bit. OOo for MacOSX is intended to be 32bit. this point is also important notice. thanks 2011/9/24 Chao Huang chao.de...@gmail.com: Another request to build AOOo on 10.7 is to solve the special issue on Mac 10.7. 2011/9/23 Chao Huang chao.de...@gmail.com: hi, Nakata The latested Mac machine can not install 10.6 and 10.5. So if I want to debug AOOo on that machine, I have to pass the full build on 10.7 firstly. Apple disabled JDK1.5 on 10.6 and cast off gcc-4.0 in Mac 10.7. In my opinion, it's a gradual request to upgrade the build env to gcc-4.2 and JDK1.6. 2011/9/23 Maho NAKATA m...@apache.org: Hi Chao Huang, just curious but why do you want to build on OSX 10.7 Lion? I have been building on Tiger (10.4) but many builds on Leopard. I think you should better start on older OS. Thanks Nakata Maho From: Chao Huang chao.de...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:23:17 +0800 hi, Michael Thank you a lot for sharing this kind of helpful information. I will have a try and share the result with you. 2011/9/22 Michael Stahl m...@openoffice.org: On 22.09.2011 08:49, Chao Huang wrote: hi, all On Mac OS X 10.7, I'm trying to build AOOo in following steps as I did on Mac OS 10.6/10.5 : 4) there will be a break with error message (due to the restriction of gcc version 4.0 in configure) checking for gcc... /usr/bin/gcc checking the GNU gcc compiler version... configure: error: You need to use the gcc-4.0 compiler (gcc 4.2.1 won't work with the MacOSX10.4u.sdk) - set CC accordingly It seems like that there is only gcc-4.2.1 in Mac OS X 10.7 with Xcode 4.1. The MacOSX10.4u.sdk is not supported by Mac OS X 10.7. There are only MacOSX10.6.sdk and MacOSX10.7.sdk under dir /Developer/SDKs. $ ls /usr/bin/gcc* /usr/bin/gcc /usr/bin/gcc-4.2 it is apparently possible to download and install the OS X 10.4 SDK even on OS X 10.7. http://catacombae.blogspot.com/2011/07/installing-xcode-326-in-mac-os-x-lion.html I'm going to remove the gcc-4.0 restriction and restart building. there was a discussion some time ago on a different mailing list on this topic; it should give you some ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of doing this: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/14099 Is there anyone who built out AOOo successfully on Mac OS X 10.7 (Intel) ? Thanks! haven't heard of anybody doing that. regards, michael -- Chao Huang -- Chao Huang -- Chao Huang
Re: consolidation of Windows Build software requirements
Am 23.09.2011 09:55, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Maybe you mixed unicows.dll with the notorious uwinapi.dll that at least has some value on WinXP, though it's unclear how much. Hm... Why do you think I am mixing unicows.dll with uwinapi.dll? I replied to Martin. :-) Regards, Mathias
[LINUX-BUILD] problem with unoxml
Hi all, I'm still working on a build on Fedora 15 x86-64. ooo svn rev 1174459 I'm broken on unoxml. How can I get better error information because the error below isn't very descriptive? Background is I'm building using: autoconf ./configure ./bootstrap source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh cd instsetoo_native build --all = Building module unoxml = Entering /home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/unoxml/prj cd .. make -s -r -j1 [ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunoxmllx.so [ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunordflx.so /bin/cp: missing destination file operand after `/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so' Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information. make: *** [/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so] Error 1 dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all' 1 module(s): unoxml need(s) to be rebuilt Reason(s): ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/unoxml/prj Has anyone had this issue? Thanks, Carl
Re: LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice.org one year later
(Resend; if any moderator spots my previous version from a gmail account please kill it; I try to only use my asf@ address for Apache work - thanks!) How to say this... whenever dealing with the press (either credentialed or just prominent blogger/news site), the first thing to do is be polite and get them the information they need in the format they need. Even if that seems like it's a pain in the a** from your point of view. That's very different from interacting with other committed developers on technical issues, or even working with new community members on an Apache list. And arguing - or simply lecturing - members of the press or even prominent technology blogs over various factual details is almost never a good idea. Not to say we shouldn't comment on the article, and especially that we shouldn't do a better job of telling our own story *in the public arena*, I'm just saying that the attitude of it's not true (you dolt), you didn't even read my page here... is counterproductive to the community and to our image in my experience. In particular, we need committed volunteers to both: - Tell a better public story, presumably through the project blog and any personal blogs or other sites committers here use. This should be focused on people who don't already know who we are or what we're doing, but rather people who say what the heck happened to OpenOffice.org. - Take an end user view of every top level service on openoffice.org now, and start adding the minimal hey! we're migrating to... blurbs. Even being able to update the About text or whatever is critical, even if we haven't finished all the proper redirects, etc. Oh, and a broad roadmap for the users of where we're going and roughly when we might get there is good. Again, one focused on the outside world, not on people who read ooo-dev@ (or, who may not have even heard of it). - Shane On 9/22/2011 12:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote: An interesting new article in Lwn.net by Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier. https://lwn.net/Articles/458974/ There are a couple factual errors there in describing our project: 1) The article claims that we have not added any committers since the project started Obviously this is not true. It is easily to verify by looking at our recent reports: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011 (72 committers) http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2011 (71 committers) http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/July2011 (56 committers) You don't need to take off your shoes and count on your toes to see that we have more committers than when we started. 2) The article claims that we don't have an issue tracker set up yet But if you click on the bug tracking link on the home page you will end up here: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/bug-tracking.html I'm not sure there is anything we can do to make this more obvious. Either of these errors would have been easily avoided if Zonker asked a question on this list or attempted to contact Apache. He seems to have followed the list traffic enough to pick out a few negative points, but then misses the discussion on the list of our monthly reports, or that fact Bugzilla has been migrated. Of course, journalists of all stripes are busy people, with deadlines and not a lot of time to fact check. So anything we can do to make progress on the project more obvious to the casual visitor might be a good thing. For example, when we have something as significant as the successful Bugzilla migration, maybe that should get a blog post? Maybe we can try to establish a regular cadence of posts, say every two weeks? If we make people dig through the mail archives for news, then we make it difficult for them and they will make dumb mistakes. They are not experts in our project. We are. So anything we can do to give them per-digested, factual of course, but more easily consumable information is of great help to the working journalist. -Rob
Re: [DISCUSSION] start collecting the correct content for a NOTICE.txt file
Hello juergen; I think the file should be named NOTICE (without the .txt extension): https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/ Cheers, Pedro.
Press requests (was: LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice.org one year later)
I'd recommend that folks contact the Apache press team in the future if there are articles in the press that the project has issues with (or, things we'd like to highlight in @TheASF or the Foundation blog): http://www.apache.org/press/ pr...@apache.org is a privately archived list, and has people with experience with most of the major technology journalists and bloggers out there who cover open source. It's usually more effective to work with press@ on material corrections to news stories than trying to work with journalists you don't know personally. - Shane
Re: [LINUX-BUILD] problem with unoxml
Hello Carl, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:19:09PM -0400, Carl Marcum wrote: How can I get better error information because the error below isn't very descriptive? Background is I'm building using: autoconf ./configure ./bootstrap source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh cd instsetoo_native build --all I always add --html This way I get useful logs in [module]/unxlngx6[.pro]/misc/logs = Building module unoxml = Entering /home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/unoxml/prj cd .. make -s -r -j1 that -s tells make to be quiet; from make --help: -s, --silent, --quiet Don't echo recipes. I always configure with --enable-verbose, which sets VERBOSE so that make is invoked without -s (see /unoxml/prj/makefile.mk) [ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunoxmllx.so [ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunordflx.so /bin/cp: missing destination file operand after `/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so' Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information. something is wrong with the generated command, cp expects two arguments: cp SOURCE DESTINATION the error says the command is missing the DESTINATION operand. Please rebuild unoxml and see what cp command is generated. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpJ0B45NLd0f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [LINUX-BUILD] problem with unoxml
Ariel,
Thank you for your help.
On 09/23/2011 10:32 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hello Carl,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:19:09PM -0400, Carl Marcum wrote:
How can I get better error information because the error below isn't
very descriptive?
Background is I'm building using:
autoconf
./configure
./bootstrap
source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
cd instsetoo_native build --all
I always add --html
This way I get useful logs in [module]/unxlngx6[.pro]/misc/logs
=
Building module unoxml
=
Entering /home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/unoxml/prj
cd .. make -s -r -j1
that -s tells make to be quiet; from make --help:
-s, --silent, --quiet Don't echo recipes.
I always configure with --enable-verbose, which sets VERBOSE so that
make is invoked without -s (see /unoxml/prj/makefile.mk)
[ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunoxmllx.so
[ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunordflx.so
/bin/cp: missing destination file operand after
`/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'
Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information.
something is wrong with the generated command, cp expects two arguments:
cp SOURCE DESTINATION
the error says the command is missing the DESTINATION operand.
Please rebuild unoxml and see what cp command is generated.
Regards
This time with
./configure --enable-verbose
and
cd instsetoo_native build --all --html
It appears no destination is called after $O/lib/libsaxlx.so in the cp
command.
output from /main/unoxml/unxlngx6.pro/misc/logs/prj.txt near error
[ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunordflx.so
R=/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk S=$R/main
O=$S/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro W=$O/workdir mkdir -p
$W/Dep/LinkTarget/Library/ RESPONSEFILE=/tmp/gbuild.9rgSNY cat
${RESPONSEFILE} /dev/null | xargs -n 200 cat
$W/Dep/LinkTarget/Library/libunordflx.so.d rm -f ${RESPONSEFILE}
R=/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk S=$R/main
O=$S/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro W=$O/workdir mkdir -p $O/lib/
/bin/cp --remove-destination --force --preserve=timestamps
$O/lib/libsaxlx.so
/bin/cp: missing destination file operand after
`/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'
Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information.
make: ***
[/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so]
Error 1
dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all'
Thanks,
Carl
Re: [LINUX-BUILD] problem with unoxml
Hello Carl,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:40:56PM -0400, Carl Marcum wrote:
This time with
./configure --enable-verbose
and
cd instsetoo_native build --all --html
It appears no destination is called after $O/lib/libsaxlx.so in the
cp command.
output from /main/unoxml/unxlngx6.pro/misc/logs/prj.txt near error
[ build DEP ] LNK:Library/libunordflx.so
R=/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk S=$R/main
O=$S/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro W=$O/workdir mkdir -p
$W/Dep/LinkTarget/Library/ RESPONSEFILE=/tmp/gbuild.9rgSNY cat
${RESPONSEFILE} /dev/null | xargs -n 200 cat
$W/Dep/LinkTarget/Library/libunordflx.so.d rm -f ${RESPONSEFILE}
R=/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk S=$R/main
O=$S/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro W=$O/workdir mkdir -p $O/lib/
/bin/cp --remove-destination --force --preserve=timestamps
$O/lib/libsaxlx.so
/bin/cp: missing destination file operand after
`/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'
Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information.
make: ***
[/home/carl/dev-svn/ooo-trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so]
Error 1
dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all'
Thanks,
Carl
I can see that error too. This is the problem:
* the sax module is a dependency of unoxml, see unoxml/prj/build.lst
* solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so does not exist, though it
should have been built in sax module. Looking there, the library is
now named libsax.so instead of libsaxlx.so, see sax/unxlngx6.pro/lib;
and is so copied to the solver.
When checking for the dependencies, the library is not found;
output of make -rd in unoxml:
Considering target file
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'.
File
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'
does not exist.
Looking for an implicit rule for
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'.
Trying pattern rule with stem `libsaxlx'.
Found an implicit rule for
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'.
Finished prerequisites of target file
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'.
Must remake target
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'.
Invoking recipe from
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solenv/gbuild/Library.mk:53 to
update target
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'.
R=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk S=$R/main
O=$S/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro W=$O/workdir mkdir -p $O/lib/
/bin/cp --remove-destination --force --preserve=timestamps
$O/lib/libsaxlx.so
bin/cp: missing destination file operand after
`/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'
Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information.
libsaxlx.so does not exist, so make tries to build it with a gbuild
recipe!
Yes, the cp command is wrong, but that's not the root cause of the
error.
It looks libsax.so should be named libsaxlx.so and delivered to the
solver with that name.
IMO we should investigate why the name has changed.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
pgpLIFRFhPwId.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [LINUX-BUILD] problem with unoxml
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 01:12:18AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: I can see that error too. This is the problem: * the sax module is a dependency of unoxml, see unoxml/prj/build.lst * solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so does not exist, though it should have been built in sax module. Looking there, the library is now named libsax.so instead of libsaxlx.so, see sax/unxlngx6.pro/lib; and is so copied to the solver. When checking for the dependencies, the library is not found; output of make -rd in unoxml: Considering target file `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'. File `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so' does not exist. Looking for an implicit rule for `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'. Trying pattern rule with stem `libsaxlx'. Found an implicit rule for `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'. Finished prerequisites of target file `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'. Must remake target `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'. Invoking recipe from /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solenv/gbuild/Library.mk:53 to update target `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so'. R=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk S=$R/main O=$S/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro W=$O/workdir mkdir -p $O/lib/ /bin/cp --remove-destination --force --preserve=timestamps $O/lib/libsaxlx.so bin/cp: missing destination file operand after `/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6.pro/lib/libsaxlx.so' Try `/bin/cp --help' for more information. libsaxlx.so does not exist, so make tries to build it with a gbuild recipe! Yes, the cp command is wrong, but that's not the root cause of the error. It looks libsax.so should be named libsaxlx.so and delivered to the solver with that name. IMO we should investigate why the name has changed. If I got it right, the problem is in solenv/inc/unxlngx.mk http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/solenv/inc/unxlngx.mk?r1=1162288r2=1174164diff_format=h DLLPOSTFIX= before DLLPOSTFIX=lx If the DLLPOSTFIX is changed there, I guess it should be changed also in solenv/gbuild/platform/linux.mk. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpMGShaV4QMB.pgp Description: PGP signature
