Re: Java and OpenOffice.org
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 19:50 -0500, David A. Cobb wrote: Bruce Byfield wrote: Hi: I'm working on an article about the decision to use Java in OpenOffice.org. The article will include both positive and negative opinions, and talk about how it affects repackagers of OOo, and how they are planning on handling the situation. If possible, I'd like to get a quote about how Debian plans to respond. By putting together a Java-free package? By using a free implementation of Java? By some other means? Since Debian is a distribution that is more dedicated than most to free software, I'm especially eager to hear how it is approaching the issue. And if anyone on the Debian OpenOffice Team would care to make other comments, I'd appreciate hearing them, by all means. Thanks, I discovered that, the way the cat learned to swim [ got tossed in the pond ]. My solution was to install the un-free Sun JDK; but I'm not happy with the solution. Java is, according to OOo, 'optional.' However, without it, significant things like the database interface don't work. I believe the best solution, one that would benefit the whole free-software community, would be to figure out how to get OOo to work with, say, kaffe or some other JVM. But I don't expect that to be easy, and I don't expect much help from the OO org -- remember that Sun ist their major sponsor. This is one more sad result of the way Sun tries to straddle the fence and be free but not always free. -- David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate By God's Grace, I am a Christian man; by my actions a great sinner. -- The Way of a Pilgrim: R.French, Tr. Life is too short to tolerate crappy software! David- I concur strongly with your thoughts. Keep in mind that yours Debian's is the right and constructive response: how can we replace this functionality with not-Java? This is the challenge to be inferred by their actions. The project has stated in the past that they would use Java where only where there were no alternative functionality available; however the increasing dependencies now make those statements seem disingenuous. -Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OOo 2.0 rc, and current status
Hi, David A. Cobb wrote: I guess I need to start with, Is anyone here awake? I see that No, the question here is where you were the last months. If you would have been here (or using Debian sarge/sid) you would have seen that there were regular openoffice.org updates for sarge and sid and experimental. the openoffice.debian.net page is woefully out of date. Altho' if it's any consolation, openoffice.org has an address in Germany that doesn't even respond: they were last updated December 2003. Yes, we know. That site isn't our priority. You could send us patches if you want FWIW. There AFAIK was one who volunteered to maintain that page but he disappeared again... And well, what exactly do you want updated? NEWS? Except the upload of new versions theer is nothing important there (well, we could mention 1.1.x, but the 1.1.0-2 stuff has the most important NEWS in Debian OpenOffice.org history), the patches? The links should be quite self explaining how to change them to get a site with the newest ones. The package overview? Is automatically updated (since it's just a link to the official DDPO). Anyway, I will look whether I can find some time at this weekend to update the page... The news of a 2.0 Release Candidate availability hit my mailbox today. I hope we are planning on packaging it! I have downloaded the That's plain wrong. It's 2.0 *beta*. Release Candidate is still a few months away. Beta doesn't mean RC, betais some time before you even can think about calling stuff a RC. There is still so many stuff to do... OOo setup program. I would like to help here. If I can do anything to make the news more current, or to speedup the packaging effort, please let me know. There are still so many bugs in that. Is the non-Java build currently working (see the other post why we can't yet build with gcj-4.0, expecially since major fixed for that wsere introduced _after_ beta, m82 to be precise). I ddidn't folow that too closely since I have to do official testbuilds for suns qa (see below) with Suns Java anyhow..? Does it build fine using the system libs (I guess the answer to the last one is yes). Anyway we both which are doing OOo packaging don't have that much time and still have to do 1.1.x stuff (and I am trying to get upstreams buildsystem - wrt configure, libs, etc - a bit more in shape for 2.0 final) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Java and OpenOffice.org
Hi, Bruce Byfield wrote: If possible, I'd like to get a quote about how Debian plans to respond. By putting together a Java-free package? By using a free implementation This is what we currently do for 1.1.x. of Java? By some other means? Since Debian is a distribution that is That's what we want to do in future when it is possible; gcj-4.0 (in experimental currently) can build many parts of OpenOffice.org after some patches for gcj support were made. (No idea about interpreting with gij, though) However, that would mean we'll get a dependency on the experimental libgcc1 so the package won't be installable (and not buildable anywayn since we need gcj-4.0) in plain unstable. Not fine. Well... For a upload to experimental we probably could try but it's really suboptimal. And if anyone on the Debian OpenOffice Team would care to make other comments, I'd appreciate hearing them, by all means. This is my comment. Probably not suitable for a official quote but the comment of one of the two maintainers. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Py UNO ... update ?
[CC:ing debain-openoffice, may be interessant for others, too ] Hi, Alex Perry wrote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/2004/07/msg00216.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/2004/07/msg00227.html This exchange was six months ago, and I can't find anything more recent using Google. Is there any status information about Debian pyuno around? The two mentioned bug entries haven't changed in ten months either ... http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=220226 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=232905 There is mention of bringing up UNO for people using Bibus on Debian http://bibus-biblio.sourceforge.net/LinuxInstall.html so it's not clear to me whether we couldn't just package what they did. It seems to unpack and run reasonably well on Testing (i.e. OOo 1.1). Right. The lack of a python-pyuno package is excatly the reason mentioned in that bibus article below. (look for the ucs2 stuff=. It'd build with python2.2 and python2.3 but will not work with 2.3. And as I tried to make policy-compliant package for python-pyuno I failed (puttting all stuff in /usr/lib/openoffice/program is bad.) OOo2 updates to python2.3 which gives us a bit hope that it may work there (especially since they AFAIS don't use special configure options to the included python...) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
CVS:oo-debian-files/debian changelog,1.125,1.126
Update of /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-debian-files/debian In directory gluck:/tmp/cvs-serv11515/debian Modified Files: changelog Log Message: minor TODO update Index: changelog === RCS file: /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-debian-files/debian/changelog,v retrieving revision 1.125 retrieving revision 1.126 diff -u -d -r1.125 -r1.126 --- changelog 3 Mar 2005 22:04:14 - 1.125 +++ changelog 5 Mar 2005 12:57:21 - 1.126 @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ openoffice.org-debian-files (1.1.3-7+0.1pre) unstable; urgency=low * mention right config file in oooprelink.8 (closes: #297887) + * minor TODO update -- Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 3 Mar 2005 23:03:07 +0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CVS:oo-debian-files/doc TODO,1.21,1.22
Update of /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-debian-files/doc In directory gluck:/tmp/cvs-serv11515/doc Modified Files: TODO Log Message: minor TODO update Index: TODO === RCS file: /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-debian-files/doc/TODO,v retrieving revision 1.21 retrieving revision 1.22 diff -u -d -r1.21 -r1.22 --- TODO10 Jul 2004 14:38:13 - 1.21 +++ TODO5 Mar 2005 12:57:22 - 1.22 @@ -7,10 +7,6 @@ - moz zips (try to generate our own separate packages, because these are 8Mb compressed. Rene has been working on this.) -* Script the .orig.tar.gz creation - - moz zips (at least the non-linux architectures, preferably the linux - zips too - see above) - * Split source into several pieces. At ~160MB of source and ~160MB of .debs, OOo is the biggest single package in Debian and updates will cost a lot in network bandwidth, however small the changes are. We need to split the @@ -24,11 +20,6 @@ - neon (0.23.x done, 0.24.x somehow doesn't work - API incompatible?) - jpeg - boost (headers) - -* Replace LZW compression algorithm. Save to Web in writer will not work if -there are graphics in the document, because writer converts all bitmaps to -GIFs using the patented LZW compression algorithm which we have disabled. -See http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4950 * Support parallel builds. Several patches have gone into the development branch but not all problems are solved. Debian bug #152718. There are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OOo 2.0 rc, and current status
Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, David A. Cobb wrote: I guess I need to start with, Is anyone here awake? I see that No, the question here is where you were the last months. OK. Any of the months from June 2004 through February 2005, mostly trying to get a stable and working Debian installation in place of Windoze. Problems have to do mostly with nVidia hardware, and getting used to the way apt does things so I don't shoot my foot completely off. I only discovered the page and the working group by way of the back-door. That is, through the OpenOffice.org page on Installing for Linux. As it is, I would not have read that except for the 2.0 _beta_ announcement -- I already had both a 1.1.2, and a 1.9.79 installation working. I mistook the out-of-datedness of the web-page to mean the working group wasn't very active. Perhaps I should have lurked awhile; but it seemed interesting things were about to happen. If you would have been here (or using Debian sarge/sid) you would have seen that there were regular openoffice.org updates for sarge and sid and experimental. the openoffice.debian.net page is woefully out of date. Altho' if it's any consolation, openoffice.org has an address in Germany that doesn't even respond: they were last updated December 2003. Yes, we know. That site isn't our priority. You could send us patches if you want FWIW. There AFAIK was one who volunteered to maintain that page but he disappeared again... Are we speaking of the Debian OOo page, here? Or the OO.org Linux page? Either way, with a 'last updated' date prominently displayed, a fairly-simple current status bullet could cure the impression of not being current. Perhaps you could point me toward some instruction in preparing proposed patches for the Debian page(s)? I did some, over a year ago, for the OO.org; but found it hard to have a meeting of the minds with the CollabNet way of doing things. And well, what exactly do you want updated? NEWS? Except the upload of new versions theer is nothing important there (well, we could mention 1.1.x, but the 1.1.0-2 stuff has the most important NEWS in Debian OpenOffice.org history), the patches? The links should be quite self explaining how to change them to get a site with the newest ones. The package overview? Is automatically updated (since it's just a link to the official DDPO). Anyway, I will look whether I can find some time at this weekend to update the page... The news of a 2.0 Release Candidate availability hit my mailbox today. I hope we are planning on packaging it! I have downloaded the That's plain wrong. It's 2.0 *beta*. Release Candidate is still a few months away. Beta doesn't mean RC, betais some time before you even can think about calling stuff a RC. There is still so many stuff to do... Ahh. Pardon the hasty mis-understanding. I didn't have the announcement right under my nose when I wrote that. OOo setup program. I would like to help here. If I can do anything to make the news more current, or to speedup the packaging effort, please let me know. There are still so many bugs in that. Is the non-Java build currently working (see the other post why we can't yet build with gcj-4.0, expecially since major fixed for that wsere introduced _after_ beta, m82 to be precise). I ddidn't folow that too closely since I have to do official testbuilds for suns qa (see below) with Suns Java anyhow..? Does it build fine using the system libs (I guess the answer to the last one is yes). Anyway we both which are doing OOo packaging don't have that much time and still have to do 1.1.x stuff (and I am trying to get upstreams buildsystem - wrt configure, libs, etc - a bit more in shape for 2.0 final) Grüße/Regards, René -- David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate By God's Grace, I am a Christian man; by my actions a great sinner. -- The Way of a Pilgrim: R.French, Tr. Life is too short to tolerate crappy software! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OOo 2.0 rc, and current status
Hi, David A. Cobb wrote: I only discovered the page and the working group by way of the back-door. That is, through the OpenOffice.org page on Installing for Linux. As it is, I would not have read that except for the 2.0 _beta_ announcement -- I already had both a 1.1.2, and a 1.9.79 installation working. Err? If you already have a Debian installation with the openoffice.org package you already *have* our packages. I mistook the out-of-datedness of the web-page to mean the working group wasn't very active. Perhaps I should have lurked awhile; but it seemed interesting things were about to happen. No. They already happened. The packages in Debian were regularily updated. Are we speaking of the Debian OOo page, here? Or the OO.org Linux page? Either way, with a 'last updated' date prominently displayed, a I'd guess both. fairly-simple current status bullet could cure the impression of not being current. that would mean that it would need a update anyway :-) Anyway, the site is now updated. In my opinion, the site should vanish after sarge anyway, since the main OOo development is done in ssarge/sid/experimental now and the mirrors showed on that site are obsolte (except for the woody backport(s) which must not be there anymore once sarge is there. Anyone wants to upgrade anyhow from the old versions the backports have ;) ) Perhaps you could point me toward some instruction in preparing proposed patches for the Debian page(s)? I did some, over a year ago, for the Get the site from Debian CVS and send patches? :) cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/debian-openoffice co openoffice.debian.net Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OOo 2.0 rc, and current status
Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, David A. Cobb wrote: I only discovered the page and the working group by way of the back-door. That is, through the OpenOffice.org page on Installing for Linux. As it is, I would not have read that except for the 2.0 _beta_ announcement -- I already had both a 1.1.2, and a 1.9.79 installation working. Err? If you already have a Debian installation with the openoffice.org package you already *have* our packages. Well, the 1.9.79 was created by downloading the RPM's from OO.org and pushing them through alien. Are we speaking of the Debian OOo page, here? Or the OO.org Linux page? Either way, with a 'last updated' date prominently displayed, a I'd guess both. I've already filed an issue with OO.org about the link. I'll look into doing a bit more there. . . . once sarge is there. I do NOT want to re-kindle /that/ discussion! Get the site from Debian CVS and send patches? :) cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/debian-openoffice co openoffice.debian.net Thanks. I'll look at it. Grüße/Regards, René m f G, -- David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate By God's Grace, I am a Christian man; by my actions a great sinner. -- The Way of a Pilgrim: R.French, Tr. Life is too short to tolerate crappy software! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Java and OpenOffice.org
Anders Breindahl wrote: P. S.: Bruce, would you post a link to me, when you're done with your article? I'll write to the debian-openoffice list when it appears. However, in case I forget, the article is being done for Newsforge, and I plan on finishing it within the week. That probably means that it will be published in a couple of weeks. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177 http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Java and OpenOffice.org
Rene Engelhard wrote: This is my comment. Probably not suitable for a official quote but the comment of one of the two maintainers. Would you mind being quoted, or at least cited as the source? Your comments will be a good example of the problems that the situation causes. To put it mildly, it sounds to me as though your work as the maintainer is suddenly much harder. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177 http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
