Re: moving to git !?
Maybe it is nice to be aware on the differences between svn and git [0] As a quick start comparison of commands is helpful [1] For Windows there is also a tortoise client [2]. However if you use tortoise for svn too, be careful. Last time I wanted to use both I had some trouble. github [3] and atlasians bitbucket [4] have some tutorials. Even both refer to their own cloud, but that is I think not big deal to think of our online repo instead. [0] https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparison [1] http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html [2] https://tortoisegit.org/ [3] https://try.github.io/ [4] https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/learn-git-with-bitbucket-cloud On 06.11.18 06:16, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > I am going to have to learn git. No big deal - revision control > systems go out of fashion every few years and it becomes time to learn > a currently fashionable one. > > Can you recommend a book or tutorial? I've used RCS and SCCS as well > as, obviously, Subversion. > > On 11/5/2018 2:37 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> We had the discussion 1 year ago to move to git. For me it was a clear >> vote for this move. However nothing happened when we released 4.1.4. >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E >> >> >> >> It was somewhat unlucky. We should start to prepare the move. I think it >> is okay to do this now. After that we should start with 4.1.7 release >> and 4.2.0 release preparations. >> >> We can also start the uno split if Damjan is still in this idea. >> >> >> Also we need to check on the pull workflow with infra. Any volunteers to >> do this? >> >> Any Concerns with this initiative? >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
Ok. This is done. On 05.11.18 23:21, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Peter Kovacs wrote: >> So now the rules state I should sign all artifacts. Others may >> concatenate their signature if they want. Do we follow this? > > No, you need to sign only three files, the three source files. And you > should remove the existing three corresponding .asc files since > multiple signatures in the same .asc file are not officially > supported. So others should not append signatures. All details are in > my message. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: moving to git !?
I am going to have to learn git. No big deal - revision control systems go out of fashion every few years and it becomes time to learn a currently fashionable one. Can you recommend a book or tutorial? I've used RCS and SCCS as well as, obviously, Subversion. On 11/5/2018 2:37 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: Hello all, We had the discussion 1 year ago to move to git. For me it was a clear vote for this move. However nothing happened when we released 4.1.4. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E It was somewhat unlucky. We should start to prepare the move. I think it is okay to do this now. After that we should start with 4.1.7 release and 4.2.0 release preparations. We can also start the uno split if Damjan is still in this idea. Also we need to check on the pull workflow with infra. Any volunteers to do this? Any Concerns with this initiative? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
moving to git !?
Hello all, We had the discussion 1 year ago to move to git. For me it was a clear vote for this move. However nothing happened when we released 4.1.4. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4db20d193cc30850e63dc03378a20462d1e5c113e566fffd6c776d1c@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E It was somewhat unlucky. We should start to prepare the move. I think it is okay to do this now. After that we should start with 4.1.7 release and 4.2.0 release preparations. We can also start the uno split if Damjan is still in this idea. Also we need to check on the pull workflow with infra. Any volunteers to do this? Any Concerns with this initiative? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
Peter Kovacs wrote: So now the rules state I should sign all artifacts. Others may concatenate their signature if they want. Do we follow this? No, you need to sign only three files, the three source files. And you should remove the existing three corresponding .asc files since multiple signatures in the same .asc file are not officially supported. So others should not append signatures. All details are in my message. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
actually I tried to make a clear form and got confused all the way. Since there is no change in process, please follow the instructions below. We should have a fixed email for this, maybe we have and I just lacked the memory to remeber. So now the rules state I should sign all artifacts. Others may concatenate their signature if they want. Do we follow this? On 05.11.18 17:54, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> In his second vote announcement Peter also specified that to cast a >> non-binding vote one still had to download and compile the source on >> ones own machine and then test that binary. This is far over and above >> anything that has ever been required for a non-binding vote. > > Whether a vote is binding or not depends entirely on the role: due to > legal issues, votes from PMC members are (always) "binding", meaning > that they are counted separately, even though everyone is welcome to > vote. > > We need to have on record at least three PMC members who built from > source and tested for the vote to be considered valid. The threshold > of three is a hard requirement. > > While building would be required of other people too, we've > historically not been very rigid on this, provided that voters in > general, so both PMC members and people from the community at large, > simply write (a subset of) what they did. > > Summarizing: > > - If you, PMC member or not, feel that the release is good enough, > please do vote and say something "+1; I tested the Italian version on > MacOS, opened ODF and .docx files, everything was OK" and nobody will > ask you whether you built from source or not; this is very valuable > feedback as we would have very limited platform/language coverage > otherwise. > > - In order to close the vote successfully, at least 3 PMC members must > explicitly write in their statement that they built from source and > tested their own builds. This ensures we meet the minimum requirements. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Access to Pootle
On 11/5/2018 12:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> I just checked the user list on the pootle server and indeed there was >> no e-mail address associated with your account. I added your @apache.org >> e-mail address to the account. This should allow you to log in with your >> committer credentials. If you still have problems please reply back to >> the list and we can investigate further. > > I think (but it is good that you tried, so we can check) that > @apache.org accounts need not be added to Pootle. Pootle should query > the local database first and fallback to LDAP (the common @apache.org > authentication) otherwise. So anyone with a @apache.org account should > be able to login without explicit creation of an account. If this still > works, then when creating a local account it's best to avoid @apache.org > e-mail addresses in order to prevent possible conflicts. > > Regards, > Andrea. Andrea; Thank you for the guidance. As always it is much appreciated. Regards Keith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
Am 05.11.18 um 19:27 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > >> On Nov 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel >> wrote: >> >> >> I did correct all sha512 files for the Windows builds, so the ones for >> macOS and Linux32/64 remain to be updated. >> > What needs to be done, exactly? You are faster than I can explain it... ;-) Thanks! > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > > I did correct all sha512 files for the Windows builds, so the ones for > macOS and Linux32/64 remain to be updated. > What needs to be done, exactly? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Access to Pootle
Hello, thank you for your action Kind regards Mechtilde Am 05.11.18 um 18:40 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> I just checked the user list on the pootle server and indeed there was >> no e-mail address associated with your account. I added your @apache.org >> e-mail address to the account. This should allow you to log in with your >> committer credentials. If you still have problems please reply back to >> the list and we can investigate further. > > I think (but it is good that you tried, so we can check) that > @apache.org accounts need not be added to Pootle. Pootle should query > the local database first and fallback to LDAP (the common @apache.org > authentication) otherwise. So anyone with a @apache.org account should > be able to login without explicit creation of an account. If this still > works, then when creating a local account it's best to avoid @apache.org > e-mail addresses in order to prevent possible conflicts. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Apache OpenOffice ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows ## Debian Developer ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Access to Pootle
Keith N. McKenna wrote: I just checked the user list on the pootle server and indeed there was no e-mail address associated with your account. I added your @apache.org e-mail address to the account. This should allow you to log in with your committer credentials. If you still have problems please reply back to the list and we can investigate further. I think (but it is good that you tried, so we can check) that @apache.org accounts need not be added to Pootle. Pootle should query the local database first and fallback to LDAP (the common @apache.org authentication) otherwise. So anyone with a @apache.org account should be able to login without explicit creation of an account. If this still works, then when creating a local account it's best to avoid @apache.org e-mail addresses in order to prevent possible conflicts. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
Hi Jim, Am 03.11.18 um 19:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > I'm not exactly sure 100% what needs to be changed... Plus, if we change the > names of files, don't we need to ensure that the sourceforge links are > correct as well? Has that been looked at? I assume you are referring to our discussion about the SHA512 files? Pedro explained it here: > Actually there is a bigger problem with the SHA512 files for _all_ the > binaries in the RC1 folder: they include the folder name > > Example > SHA512(./en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.6_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz)= > > c8caa278fd881be393ad2905ef1c89d5e96710ab4d758c254102b2f9f6fbca21ad9bfba8ef375b13b3d982da0627d195ac40dbd9e7aa10c780b6d2ea6891bcfb > > Should be > SHA512(./Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.6_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz)= > c8caa278fd881be393ad2905ef1c89d5e96710ab4d758c254102b2f9f6fbca21ad9bfba8ef375b13b3d982da0627d195ac40dbd9e7aa10c780b6d2ea6891bcfb > > Or even easier > > c8caa278fd881be393ad2905ef1c89d5e96710ab4d758c254102b2f9f6fbca21ad9bfba8ef375b13b3d982da0627d195ac40dbd9e7aa10c780b6d2ea6891bcfb > *Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.6_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz > > Thanks! > Pedro There was a little problem in our script "hash-sign.sh", which is now solved (hopefully). I did correct all sha512 files for the Windows builds, so the ones for macOS and Linux32/64 remain to be updated. Regards, Matthias > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Access to Pootle
Mechtilde wrote: for doing some Improvments to translations I started with a login to https://translate.apache.org. then I choose "Reset my password" with the apache E-Mail adress and with my normal E-Mail adress. With both adresses I get the message, "this E-Mail adress isn't asigned to a user account. Hi Mechtilde, first check your password at http://id.apache.org/ (just to be sure that your Apache account is OK). Then you should be able to login on Pootle, without a password reset, by using your Apache username (with or without @apache.org) and your existing Apache password. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
Keith N. McKenna wrote: In his second vote announcement Peter also specified that to cast a non-binding vote one still had to download and compile the source on ones own machine and then test that binary. This is far over and above anything that has ever been required for a non-binding vote. Whether a vote is binding or not depends entirely on the role: due to legal issues, votes from PMC members are (always) "binding", meaning that they are counted separately, even though everyone is welcome to vote. We need to have on record at least three PMC members who built from source and tested for the vote to be considered valid. The threshold of three is a hard requirement. While building would be required of other people too, we've historically not been very rigid on this, provided that voters in general, so both PMC members and people from the community at large, simply write (a subset of) what they did. Summarizing: - If you, PMC member or not, feel that the release is good enough, please do vote and say something "+1; I tested the Italian version on MacOS, opened ODF and .docx files, everything was OK" and nobody will ask you whether you built from source or not; this is very valuable feedback as we would have very limited platform/language coverage otherwise. - In order to close the vote successfully, at least 3 PMC members must explicitly write in their statement that they built from source and tested their own builds. This ensures we meet the minimum requirements. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > My practice had been to validate the source release and test the Mac > releases. To me that was enough. +1
Re: Access to Pootle
On 11/5/2018 5:11 AM, Mechtilde wrote: > Hello, > > for doing some Improvments to translations I started with a login to > https://translate.apache.org. > > then I choose "Reset my password" with the apache E-Mail adress and with > my normal E-Mail adress. With both adresses I get the message, "this > E-Mail adress isn't asigned to a user account. > > Can someon help me? > > Kind regards > Mechtilde; I just checked the user list on the pootle server and indeed there was no e-mail address associated with your account. I added your @apache.org e-mail address to the account. This should allow you to log in with your committer credentials. If you still have problems please reply back to the list and we can investigate further. Regards Keith McKenna signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:09 AM, Keith N. McKenna > wrote: > >> On 11/5/2018 1:41 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: >> Source signing will be done tonight. >> Thanks Andrea for the detailed line-up. >> Also I hope all requirements are met in the second mail. >> However there seems a misunderstanding on Keith side. It is not required to >> vote all test marks. >> It is required to fill in general and then what OS Version you have tested >> and if you have tested from source or not. >> Simone state in order to create a binding vote it has to be tested from >> source. >> We need 3 of those. >> Also we should have an overview which Binaries has been reviewed. > Peter; > Below are the statements from your second vote thread that had me confused: >> In order to create a binding vote individuals are REQUIRED to >> >>* download all signed _source code_ packages onto their own hardware, >> >>* verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases >>as described below, >> >>* validate all cryptographic signatures, >> >>* compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform. >> >> In order to create a normal vote individuals are REQUIRED to >> >>* download all signed _binary_ packages onto their own hardware, >> >>* verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases >>as described below, >> >>* validate all cryptographic signatures, >> >>* compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform. >> >> > Looking at the above through the lens of a newcomer to the project > wanting to participate in there first vote the description of the > requirements of a normal vote, as opposed to the binding vote described > above it vote above it, requires that I download and compile the source. > If that was not the intention you meant to convey I truly apologize. The > description of the 2 types of possible votes does created confusion in > the mind of at least this one individual. I am confused too. Since I’ve never been able to build 4.1.x on my MacOS (I could build 3.4) I guess I can’t make a binding vote and won’t do so. My practice had been to validate the source release and test the Mac releases. To me that was enough. Good luck. Regards, Dave > > Regards > Keith > > >> That is all. >> All the best >> Peter >> >> Am 5. November 2018 00:22:33 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel >> : >>> Hi Andrea, >>> Am 05.11.18 um 00:07 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > On 31/10/2018 Marcus wrote: > To make it an official vote I miss the following information: > - What exactly do we vote for (link to the source and binaries)? Yes please, let's try to be reasonably serious about releases: due to legal implications (among other things), there are some formalities that are required; nothing more than what we did for any other >>> Release Candidate in history. I assume we are voting on (this is the only 4.1.6-RC1 available, but it needs to be recorded in the vote discussion!) https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.6-RC1/ > - What is the time for the vote? Please more than just the normal 72 > hours so that we all can use a weekend for more testing. Elsewhere Peter mentioned until Wednesday 7 November but again this should be in the vote thread (so, here). And most important: the Release Manager (Peter) must sign the source files. I've just spent a lot of time trying to make sense of various ways to have multiple signature in one file, concluding that it is easy to do that for a binary signature, but it is a hack to do so for the ASCII-armored signatures we use. So, in short, Peter as the Release Manager should rectify things by: 1) Confirming that the URL and deadline above are correct 2) Replace, before the vote ends, current signatures with only his signature as follows: $ svn checkout https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.6-RC1/source $ rm *.asc $ gpg -a -b --digest-algo=SHA512 *.bz2 $ gpg -a -b --digest-algo=SHA512 *.gz $ gpg -a -b --digest-algo=SHA512 *.zip $ svn commit About this second item, I see that Matthias concatenated his >>> signature to Jim's one: this is possible for the binary format but GPG will complain if this is done for the ASCII format, and as you can see by searching the net there is no clean way to do it. I checked back in version 4.1.2 (that was signed by Juergen and me) and I found out >>> that I had simply replaced Juergen's signature with mine in that case (I was the Release Manager for 4.1.2). We can do the same this time. >>> >>> I found double signatures in 4.1.3: >>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.3/source/apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.zip.asc >>> >>> But yes, GPG complains about it and will only verify
Re: [vote] OpenOffice Release Candidate 4.1.6 RC1
On 11/5/2018 1:41 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: > Source signing will be done tonight. > Thanks Andrea for the detailed line-up. > Also I hope all requirements are met in the second mail. > However there seems a misunderstanding on Keith side. It is not required to > vote all test marks. > It is required to fill in general and then what OS Version you have tested > and if you have tested from source or not. > Simone state in order to create a binding vote it has to be tested from > source. > We need 3 of those. > Also we should have an overview which Binaries has been reviewed. Peter; Below are the statements from your second vote thread that had me confused: > In order to create a binding vote individuals are REQUIRED to > > * download all signed _source code_ packages onto their own hardware, > > * verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases > as described below, > > * validate all cryptographic signatures, > > * compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform. > > In order to create a normal vote individuals are REQUIRED to > > * download all signed _binary_ packages onto their own hardware, > > * verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases > as described below, > > * validate all cryptographic signatures, > > * compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform. > > Looking at the above through the lens of a newcomer to the project wanting to participate in there first vote the description of the requirements of a normal vote, as opposed to the binding vote described above it vote above it, requires that I download and compile the source. If that was not the intention you meant to convey I truly apologize. The description of the 2 types of possible votes does created confusion in the mind of at least this one individual. Regards Keith > That is all. > All the best > Peter > > Am 5. November 2018 00:22:33 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel > : >> Hi Andrea, >> >> Am 05.11.18 um 00:07 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: >>> On 31/10/2018 Marcus wrote: To make it an official vote I miss the following information: - What exactly do we vote for (link to the source and binaries)? >>> >>> Yes please, let's try to be reasonably serious about releases: due to >>> legal implications (among other things), there are some formalities >>> that are required; nothing more than what we did for any other >> Release >>> Candidate in history. >>> >>> I assume we are voting on (this is the only 4.1.6-RC1 available, but >>> it needs to be recorded in the vote discussion!) >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.6-RC1/ >>> - What is the time for the vote? Please more than just the normal 72 hours so that we all can use a weekend for more testing. >>> >>> Elsewhere Peter mentioned until Wednesday 7 November but again this >>> should be in the vote thread (so, here). >>> >>> And most important: the Release Manager (Peter) must sign the source >>> files. I've just spent a lot of time trying to make sense of various >>> ways to have multiple signature in one file, concluding that it is >>> easy to do that for a binary signature, but it is a hack to do so for >>> the ASCII-armored signatures we use. >>> >>> So, in short, Peter as the Release Manager should rectify things by: >>> >>> 1) Confirming that the URL and deadline above are correct >>> >>> 2) Replace, before the vote ends, current signatures with only his >>> signature as follows: >>> >>> $ svn checkout >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.6-RC1/source >>> $ rm *.asc >>> $ gpg -a -b --digest-algo=SHA512 *.bz2 >>> $ gpg -a -b --digest-algo=SHA512 *.gz >>> $ gpg -a -b --digest-algo=SHA512 *.zip >>> $ svn commit >>> >>> About this second item, I see that Matthias concatenated his >> signature >>> to Jim's one: this is possible for the binary format but GPG will >>> complain if this is done for the ASCII format, and as you can see by >>> searching the net there is no clean way to do it. I checked back in >>> version 4.1.2 (that was signed by Juergen and me) and I found out >> that >>> I had simply replaced Juergen's signature with mine in that case (I >>> was the Release Manager for 4.1.2). We can do the same this time. >> >> I found double signatures in 4.1.3: >> https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.3/source/apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.zip.asc >> >> But yes, GPG complains about it and will only verify the first. So >> Peter's signature should be the only one... >> >> (Of course he could also use our hash-sign.sh, which is fixed now for >> SHA512). >> >> Regards, >> >> Matthias >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Access to Pootle
Hello, for doing some Improvments to translations I started with a login to https://translate.apache.org. then I choose "Reset my password" with the apache E-Mail adress and with my normal E-Mail adress. With both adresses I get the message, "this E-Mail adress isn't asigned to a user account. Can someon help me? Kind regards -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Apache OpenOffice ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows ## Debian Developer ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
