Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 27.01.2017 um 21:18 schrieb toki:
> On 01/27/2017 05:58 PM, Marcus wrote:
>
>> For the source code Readme it's for sure enough. However, I don't know if it 
>> should be just for the this Readme.
> Maybe the main help page (http://www.openoffice.org/support/index.html)
> can have a link saying "Supported Platforms". This page "Supported
> Platforms" contains:
> * Platforms that the source code successfully builds on;
> * Platforms for which binary builds are available;
> * Platforms for which user documentation is available;
> * Platforms for whatever else can be construed as being "support of type x";
>
> Probably the simplest way to do this, is for the version number to the
> secondary heading, and the different types of platform support be a
> tertiary heading.
>
> Every time a new version of AOo is released, the appropriate information
> can be added at the top of the page.
>
> On a different page, the various platforms could be listed, and under
> each platform, the AOo version number and what is/was available be
> listed. I suggest a separate page, because Linux distros can arguably be
> broken into multiple groups. (Debian derived, RedHat Derived, SuSe
> derived, etc. Alternatively distros that utilize SystemD & distros that
> do not utilize SystemD. Not to mention 32/64 bit OS (^1).
>
> ###
>
> It might be more appropriate to say that binaries for eComStation 2 are
> available, rather than binaries for OS/2. OS/2 Convenience Pack 2 v 4.52
> was released in 2001. Since then, it has been distributed as
> eComStation, and eComStation2.

eComStation has been an OS/2 based distribution. And it is questionable
if there will be a new version.
The next OS/2 based distribution will be ArcaOS (Codename Blue Lion). [1]

So it is now common to speak of "OS/2 based systems" [2]

BTW: Mac OSX/MacOS X/OS X is now macOS... ;-)

[1] https://www.arcanoae.com/blue-lion/
[2] http://www.bitwiseworks.com/press/20161130.php

>
>
> ^1: I'm guessing that despite announcing it, Microsoft has yet to ship a
> 128 bit version of Windows.
>
> jonathon
>
> -
> 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: [Homepage] Favicon for openoffice.apache.org

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 23:57 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 27.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Marcus:

Am 27.01.2017 um 23:20 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

We did not have our own favicon.ico for openoffice.apache.org. So the
site took the one from apache.org.
But that one was faulty. ;-)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13370

So I created our own feather icon.

My question is: Should we stay with the Apache feather or can we take
the same favicon as openoffice.org?


the new one has no transparent background. So, the browser tab will
show the feather with surrounded white color. When this has changed
then it can be used.


You still see the old icon from apache.org with the white background...
Just refresh a couple of times. ;-)


ah right, new browser install, new settings. I've now disabled the cache.

Marcus




Regarding which one, I would like to see the feather. The website is
about the OpenOffice project, it's community and processes and less
about the software itself. So, another favicon can support the
differentiation better than if it would be the same favicon for both
websites.



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

Re: [Homepage] Favicon for openoffice.apache.org

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 27.01.2017 um 23:54 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 27.01.2017 um 23:20 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> We did not have our own favicon.ico for openoffice.apache.org. So the
>> site took the one from apache.org.
>> But that one was faulty. ;-)
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13370
>>
>> So I created our own feather icon.
>>
>> My question is: Should we stay with the Apache feather or can we take
>> the same favicon as openoffice.org?
>
> the new one has no transparent background. So, the browser tab will
> show the feather with surrounded white color. When this has changed
> then it can be used.

You still see the old icon from apache.org with the white background...
Just refresh a couple of times. ;-)

Regards, Matthias

>
> Regarding which one, I would like to see the feather. The website is
> about the OpenOffice project, it's community and processes and less
> about the software itself. So, another favicon can support the
> differentiation better than if it would be the same favicon for both
> websites.
>
> Marcus
>
> -
> 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: [Homepage] Favicon for openoffice.apache.org

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 23:20 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

We did not have our own favicon.ico for openoffice.apache.org. So the
site took the one from apache.org.
But that one was faulty. ;-)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13370

So I created our own feather icon.

My question is: Should we stay with the Apache feather or can we take
the same favicon as openoffice.org?


the new one has no transparent background. So, the browser tab will show 
the feather with surrounded white color. When this has changed then it 
can be used.


Regarding which one, I would like to see the feather. The website is 
about the OpenOffice project, it's community and processes and less 
about the software itself. So, another favicon can support the 
differentiation better than if it would be the same favicon for both 
websites.


Marcus

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

[Homepage] Favicon for openoffice.apache.org

[Matthias Seidel]

Hello all,

We did not have our own favicon.ico for openoffice.apache.org. So the
site took the one from apache.org.
But that one was faulty. ;-)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13370

So I created our own feather icon.

My question is: Should we stay with the Apache feather or can we take
the same favicon as openoffice.org?

Kind regards, Matthias




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Build issues in r1776040

[Marcus]

This post with patches doesn't got a reply until now. So, please can a 
developer have a look?


Thanks a lot

Marcus



Am 28.12.2016 um 05:33 schrieb Páder Rezső:

Hi all,


I now compiled the rev 1776040 from svn export, and I found some build
issues.
I not a developer or c/c++ programmer, so my fixes may be ugly, but all
works.

checks.patch: do not search system jars, if $SOLAR_JAVA is empty, and fixed
qt4 search paths,

gcc6.patch: the comparison between signed and unsigned numbers causes an
compiler error with gcc 6.2.0,

unixodbc.patch: the sqlext.h, which is exist, never included, the compiler
always tries to include the missing odbc/sqlext.h.

Another issues:
- I need to add 'additionalparam="-Xdoclint:none -Xmaxwarns 0"' to
  main/xmerge/util/build.xml to compile xmerge,
- the ext_sources contains
  52654eb3b2e60c35731ea8fc87f1bd29-jpegsrc.v8d.tar.gz, but
  52654eb3b2e60c35731ea8fc87f1bd29-jpeg-8d.tar.gz is required to build.

Not issue: known-desktop.patch adds Unity, MATE and Xfce to known desktops.



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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Pedro Giffuni]

Some misc. comments:

In reply to Peter Kovacs;


Would it be more wise to go for BSD as OS instead of one distribution
FreeBSD? Or are BSD variants incompatible to each other?


BSD variants are certainly incompatible with each other as the result
of about 25 years of divergence.

AFAICT, the only two BSD variants that currently can build AOO are
FreeBSD and Darwin (AKA MacOSX), which happens to be a FreeBSD
derivative. We have some build support for NetBSD but it hasn't been
tested in ages.

I wonder, do we really support all linux variants? I think the buildbots 
cover very old versions of CentOS, do we have confidence with such level 
of testing?


In reply to Marcus (and orcmid);


And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be mirrored.  
Having them

only available at dist.apache.org is the secure way to detect that the 
mirror-downloaded binary
is authentic and unaltered.

right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link. ;-)


I find the notion of depending on your own servers and hashes to certify 
binaries rather outdated. The correct approach is having

reproducible builds so that *anyone* building a given source revision
can verify that neither the server nor the code suppliers have been
compromised. See:

https://reproducible-builds.org/ (and look for the wonderful talks
in youtube, involving demos with compromised compilers or 1 bit
changes that involve backdoors).

This does depend up to a certain level on the OS build environment
supporting it.

BTW, I updated the log in r1780202, to note there is an ongoing discussion.

Pedro.

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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 27.01.2017 um 21:22 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de]
>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:46
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
>>
>> Am 27.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:
> And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
> mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the
>> secure
> way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
> unaltered.
>
> right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer
>> only
> to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty
>> link.
> ;-)
 This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows
>> shop!
 I think this is a fatal decision.
> [orcmid]
>
> That is a misunderstanding of what is required.  To be in those stores, the 
> code itself must be signed and/or uploaded by an authorized party.  Signing 
> our Windows distributions would be wonderful and that would solve a branding 
> and authentication problem also.
>
> I assume there are similar arrangements possible the Mac Store.
>
>>> as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really
>>> relevant to think now about this. ;-)
>>>
>>> Marcus
>> I would like to do a distribution of Apache OpenOffice to the Ubuntu
>> Snap Store this year.
>> Canonical has done this with LO, so it is no rocket science.
> [orcmid]
>
> If you are proposing to submit an authentic-from-AOO distribution, that will 
> have to be done by the project, I would say.
>
> There are other ways to distribute a build of your own, and you will need to 
> honor branding requirements in how you use the OpenOffice name.

It would be a "simple" repackaging of the existing DEB files.

I could do it (with given permission) through my own account and then
later hand it over to the project.
Or we create an account for AOO.

But it would be a simple way to get AOO back on Ubuntu (and all other
platforms that support "snap").
Online store, user installable with one click (even alongside with LO),
automatic updates, different channels for stable, developer and edge...

http://snapcraft.io/
https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/01/09/how-to-snap-introducing-classic-confinement/

Of course that should only be distributed when we have a release that
doesn't crash so often on Ubuntu...

>> So I would be definitely interested if that is possible/legal.
>>
>> 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: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Marcus:

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure
way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
unaltered.

right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link.
;-)

This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows shop!
I think this is a fatal decision.


as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really
relevant to think now about this. ;-)

Marcus


I would like to do a distribution of Apache OpenOffice to the Ubuntu
Snap Store this year.
Canonical has done this with LO, so it is no rocket science.


then it should be also no problem to store the hash files for these 
files on the ASF servers.



So I would be definitely interested if that is possible/legal.


With a fist fast search I haven't seen conditions and prerequisites. So, 
of course this has to be clarified.


On the other hand, as we don't store our binaries on ASF servers but on 
Sourceforge, we have already a (kind of) distributed software. So, *at 
the moment* I don't see that the Ubuntu Snap Store is a significant 
difference.


Marcus


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

Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

> On 2017-01-27, at 14:04, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> While there was much heat, I don't think Sun was pure in this matter.  Not by 
> any means.  Whatever the case, when Apache OpenOffice was founded, it was as 
> an Apache Project, not any other kind.  The "original" that you speak of 
> exists no longer.

Indeed. 
Which tabula rasa state could lead us to imagine a more collaborative world.

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

RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:46
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
>
> Am 27.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Marcus:
> > Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> >> On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:
> >>> And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
> >>> mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the
> secure
> >>> way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
> >>> unaltered.
> >>>
> >>> right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer
> only
> >>> to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty
> link.
> >>> ;-)
> >> This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows
> shop!
> >> I think this is a fatal decision.
[orcmid]

That is a misunderstanding of what is required.  To be in those stores, the 
code itself must be signed and/or uploaded by an authorized party.  Signing 
our Windows distributions would be wonderful and that would solve a branding 
and authentication problem also.

I assume there are similar arrangements possible the Mac Store.

> >
> > as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really
> > relevant to think now about this. ;-)
> >
> > Marcus
>
> I would like to do a distribution of Apache OpenOffice to the Ubuntu
> Snap Store this year.
> Canonical has done this with LO, so it is no rocket science.
[orcmid]

If you are proposing to submit an authentic-from-AOO distribution, that will 
have to be done by the project, I would say.

There are other ways to distribute a build of your own, and you will need to 
honor branding requirements in how you use the OpenOffice name.

>
> So I would be definitely interested if that is possible/legal.
>
> 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: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Peter Kovacs]

On 27.01.2017 20:39, Marcus wrote:

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure
way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
unaltered.

right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link.
;-)

This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows shop!
I think this is a fatal decision.


as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really 
relevant to think now about this. ;-)
:-D exactly, my argument. so if no one supports our own servers, we 
still have an official release?
As I said I would opt for bind the support and Binary question to the 
activity the community does.


If we do nothing we should not claim we support something. If people 
want to get it supported, they have to sign on and get involved.

That is the message we have to transport.

my 2 cents ;)

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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Peter Kovacs]

On 27.01.2017 20:39, Marcus wrote:

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure
way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
unaltered.

right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link.
;-)

This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows shop!
I think this is a fatal decision.


as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really 
relevant to think now about this. ;-)
:-D exactly, my argument. so if no one supports our own servers, we 
still have an official release?
As I said I would opt for bind the support and Binary question to the 
activity the community does.


If we do nothing we should not claim we support something. If people 
want to get it supported, they have to sign on and get involved.

That is the message we have to transport.

my 2 cents ;)

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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:
>>> And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
>>> mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure
>>> way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
>>> unaltered.
>>>
>>> right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only
>>> to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link.
>>> ;-)
>> This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows shop!
>> I think this is a fatal decision.
>
> as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really
> relevant to think now about this. ;-)
>
> Marcus

I would like to do a distribution of Apache OpenOffice to the Ubuntu
Snap Store this year.
Canonical has done this with LO, so it is no rocket science.

So I would be definitely interested if that is possible/legal.

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: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure
way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
unaltered.

right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link.
;-)

This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows shop!
I think this is a fatal decision.


as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really 
relevant to think now about this. ;-)


Marcus


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

Re: Fwd: New Pootle Account

[Matthias Seidel]

Has this been taken care of?

We have a growing number of volunteers on l10n@ waiting for a Pootle
account or even an answer...

I remember, some time ago when I wanted to contribute as a user I had to
write 3 (!) mails to the list to get an account.

This must be improved, because we do not only loose volunteers, we loose
reputation!

Just my € 0,02

Kind regards, Matthias


Am 15.01.2017 um 12:42 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Found this on l10n@
>
> Maybe some of the Pootle admins could take care of it...
>
> Kind regards, Matthias
>
>
>
>  Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
> Betreff:  New Pootle Account
> Datum:Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:08:25 -
> Von:  Manuela Silva 
> Antwort an:   l...@openoffice.apache.org
> An:   l...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
>
> First of all I want to send a big hello to all the OpenOffice volunteers
> around the globe, my name is Manuela Silva and I'm from Portugal. 
>
> I want to apply for a Pootle account in order to be able to help with the
> translation of the available projects into Portuguese (Portugal)
> language(s). 
>
> I state that my contributions are under the Apache 2 license and if is
> possible I want a username like: mansil. 
>
> I understand that a password will be created in a second more private step
> and that I have read the instructions:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/XBT8AQ
>
> Best regards, 
>
>  
>
> Manuela Silva
> ___ . 
>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Peter Kovacs]

On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:
And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be 
mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure 
way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and 
unaltered.


right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only 
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link. 
;-)

This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows shop!
I think this is a fatal decision.

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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:



-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 09:55
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

Am 27.01.2017 um 18:50 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:



-Original Message-
From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
"Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:


In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1)

dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are
provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the

platform

as a named OS [type].


I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not

under (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of
other builds without including them under their umbrella of official
releases.  Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in

those

cases.


 - Dennis

PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a

distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do

that

too.

But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum
files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions
would not have?

[orcmid]

It depends how the counterfeit is distributed.  Most of them are with

download pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to
hash values or digital signature files.  These target casual users and
they give no evidence of hashes and signatures that users would check,
even if they knew what to do with such links.


The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered.

Note that the binary does not have those links.  It is the download

page that provides them.

... where it IMHO belongs. When you have installed the software an it's
running, then nobody cares about the question "Is the install package
broken or not?". When you are afraid of getting maybe maleware then you
(search for and) verify the checksums *before* you start any
installation.

[orcmid]

Yes, of course.

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be mirrored.  
Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure way to detect that 
the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and unaltered.


right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer only 
to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty link. ;-)


Marcus


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

RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 09:55
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> 
> Am 27.01.2017 um 18:50 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
> >> "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1)
> >> dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are
> >> provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the
> platform
> >> as a named OS [type].
> >>>
> >>> I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not
> >> under (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of
> >> other builds without including them under their umbrella of official
> >> releases.  Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in
> those
> >> cases.
> >>>
> >>>  - Dennis
> >>>
> >>> PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a
> >> distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do
> that
> >> too.
> >>
> >> But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum
> >> files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions
> >> would not have?
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > It depends how the counterfeit is distributed.  Most of them are with
> download pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to
> hash values or digital signature files.  These target casual users and
> they give no evidence of hashes and signatures that users would check,
> even if they knew what to do with such links.
> >
> > The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered.
> >
> > Note that the binary does not have those links.  It is the download
> page that provides them.
> 
> ... where it IMHO belongs. When you have installed the software an it's
> running, then nobody cares about the question "Is the install package
> broken or not?". When you are afraid of getting maybe maleware then you
> (search for and) verify the checksums *before* you start any
> installation.
[orcmid] 

Yes, of course.

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be mirrored.  
Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure way to detect that 
the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and unaltered.

> 
> 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: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 00:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
> 
> 
> > In fact Go-OO was started by Ximian in 2003, long before Novell bought
> > them, as a convenient build system for developers not working
> > within Sun.
> > The difficulty of getting the Sun team to accept patches, and the
> > complexity of the Sun build system, meant that most
> > developers external to
> > Sun used Go-OO as their repository.
> >
> > There were indeed strong words spoken by many people
> > (including me on Sun's
> > behalf) but for the most part Go-OO maintained its role as a
> > downstream
> > convenience for non-Sun contributors and played a positive
> > role developing
> > a developer community around the code. I think we would all
> > be well served
> > by dropping the decade-old hostility to it at this point.
> 
> For me, the one who is working against OpenOffice, or members of the
> OpenOffice community offended, an opponent of OpenOffice.
> 
> I will never forgive what Michael Meeks said against OpenOffice! No way
> 
> 
> Jörg
[orcmid] 

Let me confirm my understanding of what I know of the friction.

The Ximian/Novell developers could not contribute significant improvements 
without providing copyright transfer to Sun Microsystems.  And that would have 
permitted Sun to use the contribution in their own *closed-source* released and 
to license OpenOffice.org code to others for production of *closed-source*, 
non-FOSS releases.  For example, the IBM Symphony software.

And for this, you fault those (by then Novell) contributors being very unhappy 
with the arrangement and refusing to enter into such agreements.  Instead, they 
worked toward their own license-faithful fork of the LGPL code, ultimately the 
LibreOffice one?

While there was much heat, I don't think Sun was pure in this matter.  Not by 
any means.  Whatever the case, when Apache OpenOffice was founded, it was as an 
Apache Project, not any other kind.  The "original" that you speak of exists no 
longer.


 - Dennis

PS: It is an interesting irony that Sun (and then Oracle) having secured those 
rights is what made it possible to contribute OpenOffice.org to Apache without 
requiring agreement of contributors.  This allowed rebasing of LibreOffice for 
the same reason for MPL-licensed distributions based on the Apache-licensed 
source.  


> 
> 
> -
> 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: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 12:45 schrieb toki:

On 01/27/2017 07:41 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:


I don't think we need complex categories here (especially because with
them a maintenance burden would come). In that source code README,
"supported" probably means "a platform for which we strive at producing
buildable source code".


If AOo were the typical Apache Software Foundation project, then that
would be both reasonable, expected, and understandable by those who
utilize the software.

But AOo is atypical of ASF projects, in that it is consumer oriented. As
such, the user base neither knows, nor expects that "supported" even
remotely implies "can be built from source".


+1. I also think that the end-users have a special interest to see and 
know how complete the support-level is for her/his language, platform, etc.



I'd propose the README state:
«
Can be built from source code:
* BSD;
* Windows 10;
* Windows 9x;
* Mac OS X;
* Linux;
* etc;

Binaries are available for:
* Linux (Debian: 64 bit);
* Linux (RPM: 64 bit);
* Windows (64 bit);
* Mac OS X;
* etc;
»


For the source code Readme it's for sure enough. However, I don't know 
if it should be just for the this Readme.


Marcus


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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Marcus]

Am 27.01.2017 um 18:50 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:




-Original Message-
From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
"Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:


In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1)

dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are
provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform
as a named OS [type].


I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not

under (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of
other builds without including them under their umbrella of official
releases.  Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in those
cases.


 - Dennis

PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a

distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that
too.

But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum
files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions
would not have?

[orcmid]

It depends how the counterfeit is distributed.  Most of them are with download 
pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to hash values or 
digital signature files.  These target casual users and they give no evidence 
of hashes and signatures that users would check, even if they knew what to do 
with such links.

The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered.

Note that the binary does not have those links.  It is the download page that 
provides them.


... where it IMHO belongs. When you have installed the software an it's 
running, then nobody cares about the question "Is the install package 
broken or not?". When you are afraid of getting maybe maleware then you 
(search for and) verify the checksums *before* you start any installation.


Marcus


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

RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
> "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:
> 
> > In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1)
> dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are
> provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform
> as a named OS [type].
> >
> > I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not
> under (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of
> other builds without including them under their umbrella of official
> releases.  Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in those
> cases.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a
> distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that
> too.
> 
> But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum
> files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions
> would not have?
[orcmid] 

It depends how the counterfeit is distributed.  Most of them are with download 
pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to hash values or 
digital signature files.  These target casual users and they give no evidence 
of hashes and signatures that users would check, even if they knew what to do 
with such links.

The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered.

Note that the binary does not have those links.  It is the download page that 
provides them.  


[ ... ]



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

Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
"Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

> In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1) dist.apache.org 
> authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are provided from source 
> releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform as a named OS [type].
> 
> I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not under 
> (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of other builds 
> without including them under their umbrella of official releases.  Not 
> certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in those cases.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a distributed 
> binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that too. 

But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum files on 
the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions would not have?

Rory
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 03:46
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> > 
> > On 01/27/2017 07:41 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think we need complex categories here (especially because with
> > > them a maintenance burden would come). In that source code README,
> > > "supported" probably means "a platform for which we strive at
> > producing
> > > buildable source code".
> > 
> > If AOo were the typical Apache Software Foundation project, then that
> > would be both reasonable, expected, and understandable by those who
> > utilize the software.
> > 
> > But AOo is atypical of ASF projects, in that it is consumer oriented. As
> > such, the user base neither knows, nor expects that "supported" even
> > remotely implies "can be built from source".
> > 
> > I'd propose the README state:
> > «
> > Can be built from source code:
> > * BSD;
> > * Windows 10;
> > * Windows 9x;
> > * Mac OS X;
> > * Linux;
> > * etc;
> > 
> > Binaries are available for:
> > * Linux (Debian: 64 bit);
> > * Linux (RPM: 64 bit);
> > * Windows (64 bit);
> > * Mac OS X;
> > * etc;
> > »
> > 
> > jonathon
> > 
> > -
> > 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
> 
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1) dist.apache.org 
authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are provided from source 
releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform as a named OS [type].

I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not under (1). 
 I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of other builds without 
including them under their umbrella of official releases.  Not certain where 
bugs are supposed to be reported in those cases.

 - Dennis

PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a distributed 
binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that too. 

> -Original Message-
> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 03:46
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> 
> On 01/27/2017 07:41 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
> > I don't think we need complex categories here (especially because with
> > them a maintenance burden would come). In that source code README,
> > "supported" probably means "a platform for which we strive at
> producing
> > buildable source code".
> 
> If AOo were the typical Apache Software Foundation project, then that
> would be both reasonable, expected, and understandable by those who
> utilize the software.
> 
> But AOo is atypical of ASF projects, in that it is consumer oriented. As
> such, the user base neither knows, nor expects that "supported" even
> remotely implies "can be built from source".
> 
> I'd propose the README state:
> «
> Can be built from source code:
> * BSD;
> * Windows 10;
> * Windows 9x;
> * Mac OS X;
> * Linux;
> * etc;
> 
> Binaries are available for:
> * Linux (Debian: 64 bit);
> * Linux (RPM: 64 bit);
> * Windows (64 bit);
> * Mac OS X;
> * etc;
> »
> 
> jonathon
> 
> -
> 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: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

[Peter Kovacs]

I think in future independent download source can become less accepted.
We should think of officially accept certain distribution routes.

For the definition of support I would go for what the community provides.
If we have people interested in FreeBSD then it's fine for me to call it
supported. If we do not have someone for Mac,  then mac falls out of
support.

Would it be more wise to go for BSD as OS instead of one distribution
FreeBSD? Or are BSD variants incompatible to each other?

Or we could go for solved bugs. If in one OS bugs pile up and no one is
solving they fall out of support.

Andrea Pescetti  schrieb am Fr., 27. Jan. 2017, 08:41:

On 26/01/2017 Marcus wrote:
> before finding categories and its names, we need to make the several
> attributes visible that describe "supported"

I don't think we need complex categories here (especially because with
them a maintenance burden would come). In that source code README,
"supported" probably means "a platform for which we strive at producing
buildable source code".

Then the fact that we provide binaries for a subset of platforms will
simply be self-explanatory from the download page. In that view, for
example we "support" many more languages than those we build binaries for.

Regards,
   Andrea.

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

-- 

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.