Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

[-1] Disapprove The deal breakers: 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set and main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're not in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause unapproved license errors in the RAT

Re: University student looking for experience in contributing to the Open Office project

I have done the above and am now running into a problem with ant. I have version 1.9.5 installed, and I get the following error: checking if /usr/local/Cellar/ant/1.9.5/libexec/bin/ant works... configure: WARNING: Ant does not work - Some Java projects will not build! checking whether ant is >=

Re: University student looking for experience in contributing to the Open Office project

PATHANGI JANARDHANAN JATINSHRAVAN wrote: While running the command you had posted in the previous mail, I got an error from configure: Good, this means that "configure" is doing its job! It will take a while to accommodate all requests and setup the system properly, but then you will be

[DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

Damjan Jovanovic wrote: [-1] Disapprove That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0, since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what we are releasing is better

Re: University student looking for experience in contributing to the Open Office project

While running the command you had posted in the previous mail, I got an error from configure: configure: error: for rebuilding unowinreg.dll you need the mingw32 C++ compiler. Specify mingw32 g++ executable name with --with-mingwin. Or use prebuilt one from

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

Ok, I am changing my vote to: [0] Abstain See below for details. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > >> [-1] Disapprove >> > > That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0, > since I don't see

Re: University student looking for experience in contributing to the Open Office project

PATHANGI JANARDHANAN JATINSHRAVAN wrote: I downgraded to Ant 1.8.4 and still I get the same issue. It is greater than 1.7.0 and 1.8.4 is sufficiently old enough at this point that I would expect it to work I confirm I can build with ant 1.9 (1.9.3, to be precise) with no issues. so is

Re: University student looking for experience in contributing to the Open Office project

I was initially running into a problem with the configure build giving an error about Ant. checking if /usr/local/Cellar/ant/1.9.5/libexec/bin/ant works... configure: WARNING: Ant does not work - Some Java projects will not build! checking whether ant is >= 1.7.0... ./configure: line 22468:

Extra files in 4.1.2-RC3 source package

Damjan reported an interesting finding a few hours ago: the source package of OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC3 contains two extra files (which are not in SVN) in "main/": MacOSXX64Env.Set and MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I've done a quick check and: - The issue already exists in the 4.1.0 and 4.1.1 releases, and

Pending release tasks

After we have a successful vote (hopefully soon), we'll have to start working on the last steps to distribute a release. They are tracked on https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 but for a short summary: 1) Preparing Release Notes. I've already updated

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

Damjan Jovanovic wrote: Ok, I am changing my vote to: [0] Abstain Thanks for your understanding. I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous releases, it shouldn't stop this release. ... since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation +1 Approve Verified signatures, checksums, licenses, built from scratch on Linux, tested Italian localization,

Re: [MWiki] Account creation

thank you Keith On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: > Mike Cullen wrote: > > Hello > > > > Please create a personal account for me so that I can contribute to the > > wiki. > > > > My preferred username would be: > > > > michael-cullen > > or > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

I don't see the "...Env.Set.sh" file as code file and therefore the rules don't apply here. But to be super-sure just delete the generated file(s) from the source tar balls and rebuild only these new. And +1 for extending the release notes with the other issues that affect the binaries.

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

+1 Tested on Windows 8.1 64-Bit Marcus Am 10/23/2015 01:50 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at

[MWiki] Account creation

Hello Please create a personal account for me so that I can contribute to the wiki. My preferred username would be: michael-cullen or michaelcullen76 Thank you. Kind regards Michael Cullen

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

On 10/23/2015 04:50 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it > is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. > > Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ > and

Re: About voting

donaldupre wrote: I was wondering, why is it necessary to vote for a minor release (4.1.1 to 4.1.2)? Because a release is an official act at Apache. It doesn't matter if it is a minor or major release. You can find all answers at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html Is a unanimous vote

About voting

Hi I was wondering, why is it necessary to vote for a minor release (4.1.1 to 4.1.2)? Voting for a major release makes sense. Is a unanimous vote necessary for a release? Where can voting history per release be found? It is interesting to see how voting results predicted the actual public

Re: About voting

Thanks! On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > donaldupre wrote: > >> I was wondering, why is it necessary to vote for a minor release (4.1.1 to >> 4.1.2)? >> > > Because a release is an official act at Apache. It doesn't matter if it is > a minor or

Re: [MWiki] Account creation

Mike Cullen wrote: > Hello > > Please create a personal account for me so that I can contribute to the > wiki. > > My preferred username would be: > > michael-cullen > or > michaelcullen76 > > Thank you. > > Kind regards > Michael Cullen > Account Michael-cullen created. A temporary password