Re: [INFRA] can''t access our buildbot config file
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/11/2014 11:59 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I was able to see it in my browser (IE11 on Windows 8.1) after logging in with my committer ID and password. That got me read access. I didn't try checking it out in SVN. -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:11 To: OOo Apache Subject: [INFRA] can''t access our buildbot config file All AOO committers should have access to our buildbot config file -- https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildmaster/master1/projects/openofficeorg.conf and I did until the svn issues recently. Could someone else confirm this problem before I report it? Thanks. Thanks. I seem to have been disallowed even to connect for some reason. :( OK, I'll look further. FYI on this... all good as of this am. I suspect network gear issues, now resolved. -- - MzK There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out. -- Lou Reed -- - MzK There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out. -- Lou Reed
Re: CentOS build box.
On 12/10/2014 03:35 PM, jan i wrote: On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/09/2014 08:31 AM, jan i wrote: Hi FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO) took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by the infra Contractors. Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts. rgds jan i. Thanks for the update. Can we get a status update on the 32-bit CentOS 5 VM? there are no open jira for AOO buildbots, so it is not being worked on. I believe That I said this earlier. I would strongly recommend to get the centos 64 and the mac installed before requesting additinal resources. as I wrote in an earlier mail we (AOO) had the chance to do all these special platforms as vm on tethys, but there was no interest at that time. rgds jan i OK. I missed the implications of the previous post. -- - MzK There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out. -- Lou Reed - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Java 32
On 12/11/2014 12:37 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 12/11/2014 04:58 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: +1 to Andreas. Sounds like a plan. There seems to be some disagreement on what (3), the dialog message, should be. It is likely that should be agreed first, since (1) will depend on it. That there are only possible mismatches on x64 Windows/Mac operating systems (or any others that run both x86 and x64 binaries) needs to be clear. Not in the message. I don't see making the message even more complicated about lore that will be even more confusing to casual users. For (1), the java.html page, I think we can address the concern by Andreas Säger by keeping the java.html page simple and providing progressive disclosure of specific details on supplementary pages if necessary. That means more page-translation work, so I suggest that java.html be kept straightforward and as simple as possible (but no simpler, of course, and definitely accurate) first. OK, then first a developer has to sort this out before we can go on. For me it's fine. Marcus -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 00:49 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Java 32 [ ... ] My suggestion (can be executed as a team, not necessarily by one person): 1. Find a proper wording for http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html The crux of this problem is that Windows AOO is 32 bit and therefore requires a 32-bit jvm. I will change java.html to note this. 2. Create a link www.openoffice.org/java pointing at it 3. Find a short (short!) text for the dialog box, sending the people to www.openoffice.org/java for any details (including 32 and 64-bit systems); I don't know if links are supported, but the short URL at 2 should take care of it 4. Place #3 in form of a patch in Bugzilla and send the number here (and if the patch comes from someone who is not one of the usual code committers, even better) 5. At that point it will be easy for people who have their own build tree to check the patch before we get it in, so don't worry about this. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out. -- Lou Reed - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
It appears that running SignTool on an .exe is deceptively simple. I have some other tasks to complete before I can install a Microsoft SDK that has the tool. I will try SignTool over the weekend. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 15:56 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter) On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [ ... ] I don't understand why full rebuilds are required. The only crucial file that needs signing is the .exe that is downloaded and extracts the actual setup files. All it does is extract a number of fixed files and then run the extracted setup.exe. [ ... ] Of course, nothing requires that we go for certification. I bet if we just signed the outermost installer it would be satisfy earlier versions of Windows, antivirus apps and browsers that are doing this kind of check.So it might be worth doing just this minimum initially. Regards, -Rob If a signed version of that .exe can be created, using the existing setups delivered with the current 4.1.1 .exe files, there is nothing else to do. It has to be done once for each language, but that's it. No full rebuilds, no new dates on files. The extracted setups would be binary identical to each of the current ones for 4.1.1, so it is easy to verify that the signed .exe does not deliver anything but the already reviewed installs. That might be unworkable, but it is definitely worth seeing if it is possible rather than going through a full-up set of build processes. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Java 32
On 12/12/2014 06:04 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 12/11/2014 12:37 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 12/11/2014 04:58 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: +1 to Andreas. Sounds like a plan. There seems to be some disagreement on what (3), the dialog message, should be. It is likely that should be agreed first, since (1) will depend on it. That there are only possible mismatches on x64 Windows/Mac operating systems (or any others that run both x86 and x64 binaries) needs to be clear. Not in the message. I don't see making the message even more complicated about lore that will be even more confusing to casual users. For (1), the java.html page, I think we can address the concern by Andreas Säger by keeping the java.html page simple and providing progressive disclosure of specific details on supplementary pages if necessary. That means more page-translation work, so I suggest that java.html be kept straightforward and as simple as possible (but no simpler, of course, and definitely accurate) first. OK, then first a developer has to sort this out before we can go on. For me it's fine. Marcus -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 00:49 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Java 32 [ ... ] My suggestion (can be executed as a team, not necessarily by one person): 1. Find a proper wording for http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html The crux of this problem is that Windows AOO is 32 bit and therefore requires a 32-bit jvm. I will change java.html to note this. 2. Create a link www.openoffice.org/java pointing at it 3. Find a short (short!) text for the dialog box, sending the people to www.openoffice.org/java for any details (including 32 and 64-bit systems); I don't know if links are supported, but the short URL at 2 should take care of it 4. Place #3 in form of a patch in Bugzilla and send the number here (and if the patch comes from someone who is not one of the usual code committers, even better) 5. At that point it will be easy for people who have their own build tree to check the patch before we get it in, so don't worry about this. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org Also, When attempting to run an UNO client Java application on a system using Java 64 bit you receive an error: Can't load IA 32-bit .dll on a AMD 64-bit platform This message probably comes from Java but it may be useful to mention it because the end user may not be aware. Unfortunately there is no way to get the user from that error to the java.html page. Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
