Forums not working?

[JZA]

Wonder if there is something wrong wtih the forums?

-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
9060 55AB FFD2 2F02 0E1A  3409 599C 14FC 9450 D3CF

RE: svn commit: r14987 - /dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Oh, OK.  Seems wordy for me.  But +0. 

I very much don't like the wide gray bar when a simple double-line is good 
enough.

When I update the language entries for Linux, I will remove the gray bar.  It 
is awful.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: mar...@apache.org [mailto:mar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 14:46
> To: comm...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r14987 - /dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html
> 
> Author: marcus
> Date: Thu Aug 25 21:45:41 2016
> New Revision: 14987
> 
> Log:
> Changed the download link names to a more language-general one
> 
> Modified:
> dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html
> 
[ ... ]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Fwd: Re: Questions about buildbot internals

[Kay Schenk]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> On 24/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> Continuing discussion with infra due to EOL on both the systems we are
>> currently using indicates we will probably be moving to Ubuntu 14.04
>> buildbots for Linux 32 and Linux 64. I'll keep you updated.
>>
>
> For the same reason, wouldn't it be better to move to 16.04 LTS actually?
>
> But if this means we'll have broken buildbots for two months then we can
> live with the current ones until the release.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>

​I didn't copy "dev" on my last question infra -- sorry.

Do you really mean 16.04 LTS? Is there a buildbot setup with this? I am NOT
a Ubuntu person.

The more I thought about this, the more it seemed better to just move to
Ubuntu 14.04 as it would give us better control over what's installed. My
question to them today, was about the 32-bit version of this. I couldn't
identify if a 32-bit buildbot for Ubuntu 14.04 was even available.

I'm assuming at this point they would change the env for our current
buildbot scripts so that wouldn't need to change.I would hope this would be
a quick chageover.

 I will copy "dev" on further communication with "infra".

We can get around the broken buildbot problem now by going back a couple of
revisions when the junit version checking was tweaked up. If we don't get a
resolution by next Wed, I'll make the change.
​




-- 
--
Kay Schenk
Apache OpenOffice

"Things work out best for those who make
 the best of the way things work out."
   -- John Wooden

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Don Lewis]

On 25 Aug, To: Don Lewis wrote:
> On 26 Aug, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 24/08/2016 Don Lewis wrote:
>>>* Updated bundled serf to fix a CVE and a WebDAV issue.  The FreeBSD
>>>  port has been using the system version of the latest and greatest.
>> 
>> We've been discussing this separately. This will make the build system 
>> even more complex, but it does have advantages and brings to completion 
>> work started with 4.1.2.
>> 
>>>* Handle the Wiki Publisher and PDF Import extensions as integrated
>>>  extensions:
>>>  
>>>  I've done some work on this in the FreeBSD port, but I haven't
>>>  tackled the installer part for other platforms.
>> 
>> Can you elaborate on this? For example the fact that they shouldn't ping 
>> for updates looks problematic (not so bad, but it will require a 
>> reasonable release pace). And actually the document suggests that 
>> bundled dictionaries are handled as integrated extensions, which is not 
>> the case at the moment - and this allows users to get, for example, a 
>> fresh English dictionary when they wish.
> 
> The versions of these that are online are really old.  The version
> of Wiki Publisher online only works with 3.x, and the PDF importer
> is listed as only being compatible with 4.0.
> 
> Since these can get built as part of the OpenOffice build and seem to
> be version specific, it seems like looking for updates could cause
> problems.  If a user sees and installs an update, the extension gets
> stored as part of that user's profile.  If the user is running an
> older version of OpenOffice and installs an update intended for a newer
> version of OpenOffice, that could cause the application to crash.
> Similarly, if a user has a copy of the extension in his profile and
> upgrades OpenOffice, that could also cause a crash.

I forgot to mention that the PDF Import extension is somewhat
problematic to distribute.  It relies on poppler, which has a GPLv2
license.  We depend on poppler being installed on the system and there
is no option to to bundle it.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Don Lewis]

On 25 Aug, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

>>> 2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7
>>> I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7
>>> for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today.
>>
>> Is there a real reason for it? I see this like saying (this is just an
>> example, not to be taken literally) "we drop support for Windows XP
>> since it's old and unsupported". In short: if we need work to drop Java
>> 1.5 then we have clear advantages in raising our requirement to 1.7,
>> otherwise we can simply drop the requirement saying "we won't explicitly
>> test compatibility with Java < 1.7"; but in that case we must provide
>> ways to obtain a compatible JRE for all the 4 supported platforms.

In the experiments that I've done, it seems like if you build with a
certain Java version, the resulting executables won't work with an older
Java version on the machine where the installation is done.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 

> 
> with more language than now the link becomes longer and 
> longer which is 
> also not the best thing.
> 
> I don't think that it's really necessary to show all languages in the 
> link. A link text like "Download for all languages" should do 
> the trick, 
> too.

yes, thats right


Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Don Lewis]

On 26 Aug, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 24/08/2016 Don Lewis wrote:
>>* Updated bundled serf to fix a CVE and a WebDAV issue.  The FreeBSD
>>  port has been using the system version of the latest and greatest.
> 
> We've been discussing this separately. This will make the build system 
> even more complex, but it does have advantages and brings to completion 
> work started with 4.1.2.
> 
>>* Handle the Wiki Publisher and PDF Import extensions as integrated
>>  extensions:
>>  
>>  I've done some work on this in the FreeBSD port, but I haven't
>>  tackled the installer part for other platforms.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this? For example the fact that they shouldn't ping 
> for updates looks problematic (not so bad, but it will require a 
> reasonable release pace). And actually the document suggests that 
> bundled dictionaries are handled as integrated extensions, which is not 
> the case at the moment - and this allows users to get, for example, a 
> fresh English dictionary when they wish.

The versions of these that are online are really old.  The version
of Wiki Publisher online only works with 3.x, and the PDF importer
is listed as only being compatible with 4.0.

Since these can get built as part of the OpenOffice build and seem to
be version specific, it seems like looking for updates could cause
problems.  If a user sees and installs an update, the extension gets
stored as part of that user's profile.  If the user is running an
older version of OpenOffice and installs an update intended for a newer
version of OpenOffice, that could cause the application to crash.
Similarly, if a user has a copy of the extension in his profile and
upgrades OpenOffice, that could also cause a crash.

I'm not sure why dictionaries should be handled as integrated.

One thing that I don't like about integrated extensions is that while
they show up in the extension manager, there is no way to disable them.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Wolf Halton]

Thought I would mention that the Oracle folks are making noises about helping 
developers move off of versions of Java < 1.7.  
They are aware of increasing numbers of vulnerabilities in the older major 
versions. Of course it isn't our job to nudge users off of XP and older Windows 
OSes, or get them off of Linux kernel 2.4, but we can get a statistically 
useful answer about how many of our visitors are using which OS by looking at 
the web server stats from the different language support sites. 
Once we see those figures, I rather expect that the flight path will get 
clearer, relative to support for obsolete OSes and Java versions. 

Wolf Halton
Mobile/Text 678-687-6104

--
Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc. 

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 17:55, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Resending to 3 lists... I suggest to have a "canonical" reply-to to the dev 
> list for the next messages. Andrea
> 
> Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> On 23/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> WARNING: This is quite long!
>> 
>> And the discussion was even longer, but I'll start with answering this one.
>> 
>> And I'll first note that:
>> 
>> 1) Work is not starting now. We have years of code already committed and
>> not shown in previous releases.
>> 
>> 2) Like for every release, we make plans but at a certain point we have
>> to cut the release and this "wishlist" is thus a tentative guideline.
>> 
>>> *PRIORITIES*
>>> 1. Update the localization.
>>> We've had quite a bit of work by the localization folks since the 4.1.1
>>> release. This was the last release, in 2014-08-21 to import localization
>>> updates. Currently, it seems we might also add 3 new languages: Uyghur,
>>> Sinhala, and Icelandic with the 4.2 release. This would include both UI
>>> translations and Help translations.
>> 
>> Last translations import were done in 4.1.0 and not 4.1.1 (if I recall
>> correctly); but this is a minor detail. There are no new languages to be
>> expected in 4.2.0: we have new languages in Pootle, but I don't think
>> any of them is ready enough for being released (this may of course
>> improve with time). So in short 4.2.0 means that we can add strings to
>> the code, which means we can make them available to translators, which
>> in turn means we can (we have to) update all translations.
>> 
>>> We need volunteers to lead this endeavor. I, personally, don't know
>>> anything about this process.
>> 
>> I'm slowly working on this but I still have something to find/learn.
>> I've sent the l10n list a mail sending that I'm planning to test a first
>> import in early September - just to test the process.
>> 
>>> 2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7
>>> I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7
>>> for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today.
>> 
>> Is there a real reason for it? I see this like saying (this is just an
>> example, not to be taken literally) "we drop support for Windows XP
>> since it's old and unsupported". In short: if we need work to drop Java
>> 1.5 then we have clear advantages in raising our requirement to 1.7,
>> otherwise we can simply drop the requirement saying "we won't explicitly
>> test compatibility with Java < 1.7"; but in that case we must provide
>> ways to obtain a compatible JRE for all the 4 supported platforms.
>> 
>>> 3. Issues for inclusion
>>> We need to include submitted/tested patches since 4.0.x. This should not
>>> include UI changes which would need to undergo a much longer test period.
>> 
>> The version number is not a detail. We call it 4.2.0 since UI changes
>> are allowed. On the other hand, we don't have to include all patches;
>> actually, seeing all the code that already went in, I would be more on
>> the conservative side here.
>> 
>>> Additionally, issue 127068, involving analytics on our source code would
>>> surely be worth investigating.
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127068
>> 
>> These are automatically found defects, good for easy fixes but probably
>> not really important.
>> 
>> I'd rather suggest that we give some attention to the 4.1.2 regressions,
>> especially this one (the only one so far):
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622
>> 
>>> *BUILDBOTS AND CONFIGURATION*
>>> 1. Move to different buildbots?
>> 
>> Not needed. A "nice to have" if they standardize it, but buildbots (I
>> mean, the Linux version they use) are not so relevant for a release.
>> 
>>> 2. Configuration Issues
>>> Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our configuration is
>>> not the version recommended in our Building Guide.
>> 
>> The this is a bug in configure, needs its own issue and must be checked.
>> 
>>> *PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT* ...
>>> It has
>>> been suggested that we use the ASF buildbots to produce our binaries
>>> with this release.
>> 
>> The ASF buildbots and releases cover two different fields. I've been
>> misunderstood from 

Re: Fwd: Re: Questions about buildbot internals

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:

Continuing discussion with infra due to EOL on both the systems we are
currently using indicates we will probably be moving to Ubuntu 14.04
buildbots for Linux 32 and Linux 64. I'll keep you updated.


For the same reason, wouldn't it be better to move to 16.04 LTS actually?

But if this means we'll have broken buildbots for two months then we can 
live with the current ones until the release.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/08/2016 Don Lewis wrote:

   * Updated bundled serf to fix a CVE and a WebDAV issue.  The FreeBSD
 port has been using the system version of the latest and greatest.


We've been discussing this separately. This will make the build system 
even more complex, but it does have advantages and brings to completion 
work started with 4.1.2.



   * Handle the Wiki Publisher and PDF Import extensions as integrated
 extensions:
 
 I've done some work on this in the FreeBSD port, but I haven't
 tackled the installer part for other platforms.


Can you elaborate on this? For example the fact that they shouldn't ping 
for updates looks problematic (not so bad, but it will require a 
reasonable release pace). And actually the document suggests that 
bundled dictionaries are handled as integrated extensions, which is not 
the case at the moment - and this allows users to get, for example, a 
fresh English dictionary when they wish.



Someone should fix the broken spellcheck problem.  It generates a lot of
complaints from our users.


We've investigated it a length; it is uncommon (it seems common due to 
the huge number of users) and like Rory and Dennis wrote this is better 
fixed with an after-the-fact fix: a tool (which ideally would become a 
menu item or a first start option) that allows to start with a clean 
profile.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Andrea Pescetti]

Resending to 3 lists... I suggest to have a "canonical" reply-to to the 
dev list for the next messages. Andrea


Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 23/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:

WARNING: This is quite long!


And the discussion was even longer, but I'll start with answering this one.

And I'll first note that:

1) Work is not starting now. We have years of code already committed and
not shown in previous releases.

2) Like for every release, we make plans but at a certain point we have
to cut the release and this "wishlist" is thus a tentative guideline.


*PRIORITIES*
1. Update the localization.
We've had quite a bit of work by the localization folks since the 4.1.1
release. This was the last release, in 2014-08-21 to import localization
updates. Currently, it seems we might also add 3 new languages: Uyghur,
Sinhala, and Icelandic with the 4.2 release. This would include both UI
translations and Help translations.


Last translations import were done in 4.1.0 and not 4.1.1 (if I recall
correctly); but this is a minor detail. There are no new languages to be
expected in 4.2.0: we have new languages in Pootle, but I don't think
any of them is ready enough for being released (this may of course
improve with time). So in short 4.2.0 means that we can add strings to
the code, which means we can make them available to translators, which
in turn means we can (we have to) update all translations.


We need volunteers to lead this endeavor. I, personally, don't know
anything about this process.


I'm slowly working on this but I still have something to find/learn.
I've sent the l10n list a mail sending that I'm planning to test a first
import in early September - just to test the process.


2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7
I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7
for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today.


Is there a real reason for it? I see this like saying (this is just an
example, not to be taken literally) "we drop support for Windows XP
since it's old and unsupported". In short: if we need work to drop Java
1.5 then we have clear advantages in raising our requirement to 1.7,
otherwise we can simply drop the requirement saying "we won't explicitly
test compatibility with Java < 1.7"; but in that case we must provide
ways to obtain a compatible JRE for all the 4 supported platforms.


3. Issues for inclusion
We need to include submitted/tested patches since 4.0.x. This should not
include UI changes which would need to undergo a much longer test period.


The version number is not a detail. We call it 4.2.0 since UI changes
are allowed. On the other hand, we don't have to include all patches;
actually, seeing all the code that already went in, I would be more on
the conservative side here.


Additionally, issue 127068, involving analytics on our source code would
surely be worth investigating.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127068


These are automatically found defects, good for easy fixes but probably
not really important.

I'd rather suggest that we give some attention to the 4.1.2 regressions,
especially this one (the only one so far):
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622


*BUILDBOTS AND CONFIGURATION*
1. Move to different buildbots?


Not needed. A "nice to have" if they standardize it, but buildbots (I
mean, the Linux version they use) are not so relevant for a release.


2. Configuration Issues
Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our configuration is
not the version recommended in our Building Guide.


The this is a bug in configure, needs its own issue and must be checked.


*PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT* ...
It has
been suggested that we use the ASF buildbots to produce our binaries
with this release.


The ASF buildbots and releases cover two different fields. I've been
misunderstood from time to time, but just to make it clear: I would
never want that we use the buildbots for releasing (at least for Linux),
since you want a recent Linux on buildbots and on old Linux on the
release VM (where this VM is hosted can be deferred to a separate thread).


Andrea has volunteered to set up a production environment for us. SEE:
http://markmail.org/message/b4dbjdeu4llczqwt


I see that discussion has been misunderstood. I'll reply there. It
suffices to say, here, that I'm not suggesting to use buildbots for the
release builds. Which basically means I agree with your point of view in
this respect.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi  again;
...

I did update most of the components you mention and even gave a talk
about it ;).


It looks like the others are:
ucpp


We are using the latest version.


Hmn, I wonder why the FreeBSD port is using the bundled one.


I think we just don't have an option in AOO to use an external
cpp.

I actually asked for one, but Jürgen Schmidt, considered it
unnecessary since the code is so small (he was probably right).

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:37
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> Am 08/25/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> >
> >> Yes, now I understand.
> >>
> >> Is it better now?
> >
> > _imho_ yes.
> 
> I've merged both tables into a single one. Now we have really one style.
> 
> Furthermore, I've added also a note that the hotfix is *not* depended on
> the language. IMHO this is important to know for the users.
> 
[orcmid] 

+1 on both


> Marcus
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Marcus]

Am 08/25/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]



Yes, now I understand.

Is it better now?


_imho_ yes.


I've merged both tables into a single one. Now we have really one style.

Furthermore, I've added also a note that the hotfix is *not* depended on 
the language. IMHO this is important to know for the users.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 

> Yes, now I understand.
> 
> Is it better now?

_imho_ yes.


Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Kay Schenk]

On 08/24/2016 07:42 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> On 2016-08-23, 1:14 PM Kay sch...@apache.org wrote concerning "[DISCUSS]
> Release 4.2: General Topics":
> 
>> 2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to*at least*  Java 1.7
> 
> I replied earlier using gmane, but it doesn't seem to have gone through.
> 
> Has Issue 126622 - Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac
> OSX been fixed?
> I don't see any comments on the issue page saying it has or that anyone
> is working on it. The issue is marked as P1 Critical.
> 
> 

It has not been fixed. And, as far as we know, no one is working on it.

-- 

Kay Schenk
Apache OpenOffice

"Things work out best for those who make
 the best of the way things work out."
 -- John Wooden

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 

> This will not work.  Only for Windows does each language have 
> a separate .zip.
> 
> For MacOSX and the Linux packages, there are multiple README 
> files but only one .zip per platform. (All versions of the 
> README are in the single Zip.)

Sorry, but that's not the problem what I mean.

There are currently 2 tables that have a different layout because rows and 
columns are swapped, _this is confusing for the user_.

Not, however, there must be one table, it can also be 2, but with _unique_ 
layout.

Have a look on this:
http://calc-info.de/files/illustration.gif


You understand now what I mean?



Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 01:47
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Cc: q...@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
[ ... ]
> The design of the site
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/hotfix.html is very confusing.
> 
> By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first
> column, are in the 2 tables reversed.
> 
> Can we use a uniform table:
> 
> Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download |
> Signature | Digital Hashes
> MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
>  | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...
> |
>  | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> 
[orcmid] 

This will not work.  Only for Windows does each language have a separate .zip.

For MacOSX and the Linux packages, there are multiple README files but only one 
.zip per platform. (All versions of the README are in the single Zip.)

The difference is that each Windows Zip contains localized scripts in the same 
language as the README.
There are no localized scripts for the other platforms.

See how that looks now at 
.

> 
> 
> I wanted to make the changes itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do
> not know why.
[orcmid] 

I am not certain what you were attempting to do.  The dev area is not under the 
CMS.  It is not part of the web site.

In any case, please don't change hotfix.html.  It is already being updated for 
the localizations that are now available.

All of your suggestions are valuable.  Thank you for pointing this out.
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:12 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: q...@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of 
> ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> I am about to start staging the Hotfixes that we have for 
> general distribution.
> 
> I do have some changes to the Windows version that I will make first.
> 
>  1. The APPLY/REVERT scripts have a minor inconsistency in 
> the formatting of a message following a successful operation. 
>  (This was caught already in the Dutch translation and drafts 
> of the German one.)
> 
>  2. The README is corrected
> a. To identify the location where the correct Zip should 
> be downloaded (already done in the Dutch version).
> b. To update the Acknowledgment (ditto).
> c. Improve wording in the note about Anti-Virus options 
> to request permission to accept the Zip download.
> 
> That is starting now.

The design of the site 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html is 
very confusing.

By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first column, are 
in the 2 tables reversed.

Can we use a uniform table:

Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download | Signature | 
Digital Hashes
MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...   |
MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |



I wanted to make the changes itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do not 
know why.



Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:12 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: q...@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of 
> ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> I am about to start staging the Hotfixes that we have for 
> general distribution.
> 
> I do have some changes to the Windows version that I will make first.
> 
>  1. The APPLY/REVERT scripts have a minor inconsistency in 
> the formatting of a message following a successful operation. 
>  (This was caught already in the Dutch translation and drafts 
> of the German one.)
> 
>  2. The README is corrected
> a. To identify the location where the correct Zip should 
> be downloaded (already done in the Dutch version).
> b. To update the Acknowledgment (ditto).
> c. Improve wording in the note about Anti-Virus options 
> to request permission to accept the Zip download.
> 
> That is starting now.

The design of the site 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html is 
very confusing.

By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first column, are 
in the 2 tables reversed.

Can we use a uniform table:

Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download | Signature | 
Digital Hashes
MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...   |
MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |



I wanted to make the change itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do not know 
why.



Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org