pedlino commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-694711358
Just followed the steps using AOO418m1(Build:9801) - Rev. 07cb168e39
2020-08-26 09:48 - Linux x86_64
under Ubuntu 18.04 x64 and there was no crash.
DonLewisFreeBSD opened a new pull request #95:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/95
Correct javadoc comments to unbreak --enable-odk build with JDK 8 or newer
This is an automated message from the Apache Git
leginee commented on pull request #82:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/82#issuecomment-633401979
Cool, Okay I will have a look.
thx for the pointer.
I will update the pull request. So lets leave it open for now.
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #94:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/94#issuecomment-695775735
I would really like to get this PR in AOO418.
@jimjag: But for macOS there are still adjustments to be made?
cbmarcum commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-660562354
Will the bugzilla issue remain open for the Item 3 in the attachment about
Untitled1 vs Untitled 1 with a space difference between titlebar and menus?
cbmarcum removed a comment on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-660561183
Writer context menu now shows a space before the parenthesis and displays
inactive also. This looks consistent with Calc now.
I can also confirm that the help window
dev-hyeondnl commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-660584716
OK I think there is a mistake in GetTitle function:( It seems that adding a
space before this line works.
cbmarcum commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-660561183
Writer context menu now shows a space before the parenthesis and displays
inactive also. This looks consistent with Calc now.
I can also confirm that the help window is
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-660613990
> Will the bugzilla issue remain open for the Item 3 in the attachment about
Untitled1 vs Untitled 1 with a space difference between titlebar and menus?
Maybe we should
cbmarcum commented on pull request #12:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/12#issuecomment-660630751
Is there a bugzilla issue this is to?
What can I do to verify the change?
Shouldn't the alt tag be a description of the image since it's used in place
of image and for
PatriciaShanahan commented on pull request #31:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/31#issuecomment-660641717
It is difficult to verify experimentally, because the symptom would be
failure to dispose of an object that is no longer needed.
From a code inspection point of
cbmarcum commented on pull request #31:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/31#issuecomment-660638605
This looks legitimate. I'd like someone better than me at Cpp to look at it.
This is an automated message from
cbmarcum commented on pull request #84:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/84#issuecomment-660645552
Where can I find the message this fixes during build?
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
Pilot-Pirx merged pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go
ardovm commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-652464308
I see that in the same file there are other fixed-size arrays used as stacks
(if I understand correctly):
* `CffSubsetterContext::mnValStack`,
*
ardovm opened a new pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89
This is a follow-up of [bug
125359](https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125359).
Instead of using fixed-size arrays, use `std::vector` as a variable-sized
array for `CffLocal` objects.
leginee commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-652654917
If you ncould change those and add them to the PR would be great. Or maybe
make a new PR. I have a look on the weekend.
I try to get some pointers on testing. I struggle
Pilot-Pirx merged pull request #29:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/29
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go
Pilot-Pirx merged pull request #86:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/86
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-653749584
As a first test I could build AOO42X on Windows with this patch applied.
I could also successfully export a document to PDF with Noto Sans CJK font.
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #86:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/86#issuecomment-654756117
Hi Carl,
I think I already corrected these typos, can you have a second look?
This is an automated
ardovm commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-657786860
I am trying to get a grasp on the CFF concepts. It's... a whole world. Thank
you @leginee for the pointers!
However it will take me some more time to understand if it is
leginee commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-657991972
I like the comments.
Take the time you need. We are all on the same team.
This is an automated message
Pilot-Pirx opened a new pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90
See: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=128395
I took over the logic from
https://github.com/apache/openoffice/blob/trunk/main/sw/source/ui/utlui/navipi.cxx#L1217
But since I am
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-658122082
OK, we need some additional logic to exclude Help pages in that list...
See: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=5
cbmarcum opened a new pull request #91:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/91
This work is to create the main Java UNO jar library files and their
associated JavaDoc and Source jars during a build of OpenOffice. This work
attempts to automate the procedure documented on the
cbmarcum merged pull request #91:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/91
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to
leginee commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-653869909
@ardovm
I searched a bit for CFF on our opengrok site (
http://opengrok.openoffice.org/search?project=trunk=CFF==full
). And it looks like this is something to do with
cbmarcum commented on pull request #83:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/83#issuecomment-657278578
A test macro..
```python
import sys
def HelloVersionPython( ):
"""Prints the Python version into the current document"""
#get the doc from the
ardovm commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-652807797
Thank you, Petko. It would help me to know what is the expected average size
and variation of such stacks, to give a "meaningful" initial size and optimize
the number of calls to
Pilot-Pirx commented on a change in pull request #29:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/29#discussion_r451869437
##
File path: main/helpcontent2/source/text/scalc/01/04060104.xhp
##
@@ -637,9 +637,9 @@
Returns the file name and the sheet number of the
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #83:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/83#issuecomment-657073608
Come on, this is no rocket science!
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to
oooforum opened a new pull request #88:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/88
Fix for issue #54923
Ctrl + > to increase
Ctrl + < to decrese
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
leginee opened a new pull request #87:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/87
As suggested in the [Discussion on
dev](https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rec5be7b838a16c55ee64c12128515bc10dc74c20b3f5bf57e85e%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E),
I have created a patch that
DamjanJovanovic commented on pull request #87:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/87#issuecomment-640174534
There's a dependency from filter -> saxon -> stax
```
$ grep SAXON filter -R
filter/prj/build.lst:fl filter :L10N:l10n svtools unotools xmloff
cppu
leginee commented on pull request #87:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/87#issuecomment-640177923
Yes that is correct. Let me Quote Pedro Giffuni from the discussion:
```
While looking for candidates to remove stuff, consider stax. It is
included in Java since
value $field_a[0] in numeric lt (<) at
/home/legine/workspace/AOO/gitbox/main/solenv/bin/deliver.pl line 976.`
I did not open a Bug report. If I shoul just mention it.
This is an automated message from the Apache Gi
`Use of uninitialized value $field_a[0] in numeric lt (<) at
workspace/AOO/gitbox/main/solenv/bin/deliver.pl line 976.`
I did not open a Bug report. If I shoul just mention it.
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
T
leginee commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-662838003
Thanks for the feedback. I think the patch is then feature complete.
To have one commit that can be simple be merged would be nice. Please do the
merge.
I am not sure
leginee edited a comment on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-662838003
Thanks for the feedback. I think the patch is then feature complete.
To have one commit that can be simple be merged would be nice. Please do the
merge.
I am not
ardovm commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-662862458
> Thanks for the feedback. I think the patch is then feature complete.
> To have one commit that can be simple be merged would be nice. Please do
the merge.
Done.
dev-hyeondnl commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-659231424
It seems that the first logic provides us the solution; I just added the
code at the beginning of while statement, and the help pages vanished.
```C++
if
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-659354278
>
> ```c++
> if (pView->GetDocShell()->IsHelpDocument()) {
> pView = SwModule::GetNextView(pView);
> continue;
> }
> ```
Thanks, that code is
dev-hyeondnl commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-659358173
Yes it goes right after the opening parenthesis on line 1192. It will look
like this
```cxx
while (pView)
{
if (pView->GetDocShell()->IsHelpDocument())
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #90:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/90#issuecomment-660368529
Updated patch to filter out help pages.
My Windows Test Build was successful and did show (inactive) but no help
window in context menu.
cbmarcum commented on pull request #88:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/88#issuecomment-664006969
I think maybe this should discussed on dev@ to get some consensus on the key
combination that would be appropriate because of the ramifications of this
addition.
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #88:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/88#issuecomment-664003721
Just for conformity with other office applications:
MS uses Ctrl-[ for decrease and Ctrl-] for increase.
LO uses the equivalent Ctrl-8 and Ctrl-9.
Setting these
ardovm commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-662696345
I started to dig a bit deeper into CFF and Type2, then I understood they are
out of my reach.
In the end, if the code works well as it is, I would refrain to change it
any
ardovm opened a new pull request #118:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/118
See [https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129]
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
ardovm commented on pull request #32:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/32#issuecomment-758148778
Please see my comment on the bug report.
Do we still believe this is a bug?
This is an automated message from
leginee commented on pull request #115:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/115#issuecomment-758453134
Hmm, can I add a review confirmetion somehow, I wonder.
This is an automated message from the Apache Git
leginee edited a comment on pull request #32:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/32#issuecomment-758461218
I am not sure if this is a bug or not. We should to investigate this further.
This is an automated
leginee commented on pull request #32:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/32#issuecomment-758461218
I am not sure if this is a bug or not. We need to investigate this further.
This is an automated message from
ardovm opened a new pull request #116:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/116
This PR tries to address [bug
127952](https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127952).
After applying it, the Linux builds should not crash when opening the [file
linked by the
ardovm opened a new pull request #109:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/109
As already pointed out by [bug
127712](https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127712), Gcc seems to have
changed its behavior, with respect to filesystem paths, since Gcc 7.
The Boost::tr1
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-739506019
Yes, but patches are normally committed top->down.
So first in trunk and then in the branches...
And there is no branch for a release yet, AOO42X is still for
NordMike commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-739493620
It's for AOO42X because I'm trying to build upcoming release.
This is an automated message from the Apache
NordMike opened a new pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-739375860
OK, this PR is for AOO42X but we can of course cherry-pick it later for
trunk...
Just FTR: This is for Bugzilla Issue
NordMike commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-741613556
Should I rebase it for trunk or is AOO42X OK for now?
This is an automated message from the Apache Git
ardovm opened a new pull request #111:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/111
Some Linux distributions, such as openSUSE, on x86_64 systems install
libraries in directories named "lib64" instead of "lib".
AOO418 and development branches do not compile successfully,
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-742520358
AOO42X is OK for now.
Can you tell me where this error is to be seen? Is there a log file?
This is
leginee commented on pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113#issuecomment-747446201
hmm, that echo needs no quotes in
` echo Build environment not set; works without Quotes?`
looks strange. Is it special on make files that they can omit these?
leginee commented on pull request #112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/112#issuecomment-745358578
Awesome! Thanks for the patch.
While reviewing the patch, I noticed that some code has only commented out
and not removed. Is there any reason why we want to keep it?
leginee commented on pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113#issuecomment-747527573
Worth a test. :)
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please
ardovm commented on pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113#issuecomment-747509362
By the way, I followed that "pattern" as is it the same for the `install`
target in the same file:
```Makefile
install .PHONY :
@test "$(DESTDIR)$(prefix)" !=
ardovm commented on pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113#issuecomment-747507745
@leginee I was also surprised it works :-)
Proof:
```
$ echo Hello world; echo Hallo Welt
Hello world
Hallo Welt
$
```
dave2wave commented on pull request #74:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/74#issuecomment-747643540
Please review your PRs and then start a thread on dev@openoffice to discuss
approval.
This is an automated
NordMike commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-742669081
Yes, it's exactly the same. Backport it, please.
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-742672030
Done!
Thanks for finding this.
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110#issuecomment-742661749
OK, this seems to be fixed in trunk for some time:
Pilot-Pirx merged pull request #110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/110
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744013286
I don't see a mismatch in the odt (opened with AOO 4.1.8 on Ubuntu 16.04)
Also no problems on Windows with AOO 4.2.0-dev.
Do you have the font (Noto Sans CJK SC)
cbmarcum edited a comment on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744009606
When I open the pr89.odt file from the PR89.zip I see a discrepancy in the
characters 6th row left column vs. the image in the right column.
cbmarcum commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744009606
When I open the pr89.odt file from the PR89.zip I see a discrepancy in the
characters 6th row left column vs. the image in the right column.
cbmarcum edited a comment on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744009606
When I open the pr89.odt file from the PR89.zip I see a discrepancy in the
characters 6th row left column vs. the image in the right column. The pr89.pdf
matches.
cbmarcum commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744035475
I figured it out. I had Noto Sans CJK SC font's installed but they had
weight modifiers Light, Medium, Bold in the font names. Once I changed them it
appeared correctly.
ardovm commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744016761
@cbmarcum thank you for the detailed review.
I don't know Korean, unfortunately, but from this page:
https://fonts.google.com/?subset=korean=%ED%95%98_type=custom
it
cbmarcum edited a comment on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744035475
I figured it out. I had Noto Sans CJK SC font's installed but they had
weight modifiers Light, Medium, Bold in the font names. Once I changed them it
appeared
DonLewisFreeBSD commented on pull request #93:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/93#issuecomment-748416075
> How about we define a stlport::unique_ptr?
> We use
> auto_ptr for older builds and unique_ptr for newer.
They are similar but unique_ptr is not a drop in
leginee commented on pull request #93:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/93#issuecomment-748299936
How about we define a stlport::unique_ptr?
We use
auto_ptr for older builds and unique_ptr for newer.
leginee edited a comment on pull request #93:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/93#issuecomment-748299936
How about we define a stlport::unique_ptr?
We use
auto_ptr for older builds and unique_ptr for newer.
but basically I am fine in general with building with
leginee commented on pull request #93:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/93#issuecomment-748442390
We need to find a method to do the modernization of the code. If we define
this in stlport then we would have one place to mess around with. Also the idea
is we could keep the
Grosskopf commented on pull request #112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/112#issuecomment-745430027
Thank you for the quick answer :) True, we don't need that. I tried
Squashing it but that didn't quite work the way I expected xD is this ok?
Also, I committed this
Grosskopf opened a new pull request #112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/112
A fix for [Bug 108383](https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=108383)
Repeating groupheaders were in the page's header while normal groupheaders
were in the pages body. So when a normal
leginee commented on pull request #112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/112#issuecomment-746352262
> I think I did remove it, is it not gone? this commit history is messy...
Probably I had some caching issue or tomatos on my eyes. I did not see that
you removed the
leginee edited a comment on pull request #112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/112#issuecomment-746352262
> I think I did remove it, is it not gone? this commit history is messy...
Probably I had some caching issue or tomatos on my eyes. I did not see that
you removed
leginee commented on pull request #112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/112#issuecomment-745573586
If not needed I would would opt that the dead code is removed. :) Can you
remove it? or should I check how I can incorporate this wish?
We need only the Apache License.
cbmarcum opened a new pull request #1:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice-mwiki/pull/1
Updated OOoIDLtags.php file to replace the deprecated ereg_replace methods
with the new preg_replace and updated arguments.
Also I bumped the minor version number present in the file.
ardovm opened a new pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113
As per a recent thread on the dev@ mailing list, the "dmake clean" command
may wipe out the whole source tree, if the build environment was not set by
sourcing the appropriate `.Env` script.
cbmarcum merged pull request #1:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice-mwiki/pull/1
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to
Pilot-Pirx merged pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #113:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/113#issuecomment-749494181
Is there any reason not to merge this PR?
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #89:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/89#issuecomment-744752764
Did another build on Windows now. No problems with export.
This PR is OK from my point of view.
This is an
JohnRDOrazio commented on pull request #100:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/100#issuecomment-727196880
I was just [reading up in
bugzilla](https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126891) on all the work
done on testing this, thanks to don Lewis and to Kay for your effort
JohnRDOrazio commented on pull request #100:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/100#issuecomment-723484163
I was reading in the recent threads that there is a MacOS machine with
Catalina available for testing builds, perhaps this could be tested on that
machine? I'm needing an
leginee edited a comment on pull request #100:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/100#issuecomment-723499392
> I was reading in the recent threads that there is a MacOS machine with
Catalina available for testing builds, perhaps this could be tested on that
machine?
leginee edited a comment on pull request #100:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/100#issuecomment-723499392
> I was reading in the recent threads that there is a MacOS machine with
Catalina available for testing builds, perhaps this could be tested on that
machine?
leginee commented on pull request #100:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/100#issuecomment-723499392
> I was reading in the recent threads that there is a MacOS machine with
Catalina available for testing builds, perhaps this could be tested on that
machine?
yes, that is
101 - 200 of 726 matches
Mail list logo
