Re: macOS on trunk broken again

> > I think that's the problem. In that bottom line, $(1) is /path/pyuno.so, but > because it's ending in .so, the patsubst won't do a replacement, so ends up > running: > ln -shf $(1) $(1) > > Maybe we should skip symlinking when it's not a .dylib? >

trunk and AOO42X sync

I am going through and syncing/backporting various patches from trunk to AOO42X... Just a FYI - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: trunk and AOO42X sync

Matthias, do you want to go thru the various fixes you've done on trunk and commit them to AOO42X or should I? > On Feb 13, 2019, at 8:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > I am going through and syncing/backporting various patches from > trunk to AOO42X..

Re: trunk and AOO42X sync

OK, gotcha. I'll focus on the gbuild backports then along w/ any fixes that look more than cosmetic and/or whitespace. Cheers! > On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 13.02.19 um 15:10 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Matthias, do yo

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Just in case, I'm doing Beta builds of AOO42X (HEAD) for macOS and Linux 64+32 > On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time? > > - >

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

s > > [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129 > > > Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time? >> >> - >> To un

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

gt;> the latest translations from Pootle. >> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still >> need to be updated in source. >> >> Regards, >> >> Matthias >> >> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

= Building module apple_remote = Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/trunk/main/apple_remote/prj cd .. && make -s -r -j6 && make -s -r deliverlog [ info ALL ] LinkTarget Library/libc++.dylib not defined: Assuming headers to be there! [ build PKG ] apple_remote_inc [ build DEP

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

Disregard this for now... I think it was a build error due to not fully cleaning the apple_remote subdir > On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > = > Building module apple_remote > = > > Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/trunk/main/app

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

Nope... that wasn't it. Even with a complete fresh-from-scratch build, I get the same error. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

used-parameter] - (void) remoteButton: (RemoteControlEventIdentifier)buttonIdentifier pressedDown: (BOOL) pressedDown clickCount: (unsigned int)clickCount ^ 1 warning ge

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

> On Feb 19, 2019, at 12:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > > If > not, I'll have to make a gb_Library_add_objcobjects API instead. If I knew how, I'd do it. Looking over the add_objcxxobjects stuff it seems like a maze of twisty little passages ---

Re: Quicktime?

avmedia uses QTKit > On Feb 19, 2019, at 6:42 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > Where do we use Quicktime stuff? > > I want to check if I can collect all Developer information so we can > remove or add newer API stuff to the code. > > > All the Best > > Peter > > > --

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

file extensions back on *.m. > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jim Jagielski <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 2019, at 12:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic > <mailto:dam...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > If > &g

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

In both cases (using trunk and AOO42X) I get: nm -D solver/450/unxmaccx.pro/lib/*AppleRe* /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/nm: solver/450/unxmaccx.pro/lib/libAppleRemote.dylib: File format has no dynamic symbol table. /Applications/Xcode.app/

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

You may also need: > #include > > See if you get this back in the AppleRemote.dylib after building: > bd80 S _OBJC_CLASS_$_AppleRemote > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:29 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> In both cases (using trunk and AOO42X) I get:

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

OK, actually it looks like there's nothing being compiled... = Building module apple_remote = Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/trunk/main/apple_remote/prj cd .. && make -s -r -j6 && make -s -r deliverlog [ info ALL ] LinkTarget Library/libc++.dylib not defined: Assuming hea

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

Here is the attempted build w/ --verbose - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r1853643 - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ apple_remote/ apple_remote/prj/ apple_remote/source/

Resolved in r 1854065

Re: [discussion] refactoring OpenOffice

FWIW, I agree. We've already seen how simple, obvious changes have a nasty ripple effect. Having a major restructure "now" would, from what I can see, have a major impact on us being able to release 4.2.0 in anything close to "soon"... I also have issues w/ fixing/restructuring things that work

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English > dictionary. > > The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all > hashes and PGP signatures. > It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage. > > Opinions? > > Re

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Very cool. > On Mar 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim and all, > > Am 07.03.19 um 15:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> ++1 > > FYI: > > I just added a graphic for the about dialog which is now used when you > build a Developer Snap

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Let me know when you're done and I can fire up the "official" developer's builds :) > On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Very cool. > >> On Mar 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Matthias Seidel >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jim an

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

firing macOS up as we speak... > On Mar 14, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 13.03.19 um 14:35 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Let me know when you're done and I can fire up the "official" developer's >> builds :) &g

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in naming to our Beta. > On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 15.03.19 um 12:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> I've upload just a couple of the macOS AOO-4.2.0-d

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

I'm starting another macOS build. :) > On Mar 18, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 17.03.19 um 15:18 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in naming >> to our Beta. >

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be ready for a tag and build of Dev1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

If no one will, I will > On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be >> ready for a tag and build of Dev1 > > Do we have v

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

+1! > On Mar 21, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then > we can add stuff. > > Okay? > > On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> If no one will, I will >> >>>

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

on the Languages we have now available >>> and which >>>>>>>>>>> have Issues? >>>>>>>>>> Mechtilde knows best. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages whe

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

I'll be creating a tag today around 3pm EDT, unless I hear otherwise ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

The TAG for the developer preview is now applied: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1 I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag as we speak. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

> On Mar 26, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Did you enjoy the Apache Roadshow yesterday? ;-) > I did actually... it's nice seeing smaller, more intimate events, esp located at colleges and universities. -

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

me if you like: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/ > > Regards, > >Matthias > > Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied: >> >>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/op

Re: svn commit: r33277 - /dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/binaries/de/

Do you see anything obvious in the config log for my build? > On Mar 28, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > I just installed the German version on Xubuntu 64-bit. > Works great so far, but the desktop integration is missing. I don't know > if this is intentional or a bu

4.2.0-dev-m1

Does the lack of desktop integration in m1 mean that this dev release is DOA? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1

Give me a few hours :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1

Which languages should I post for people to try? > On Mar 31, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 31.03.19 um 16:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Give me a few hours :) > No hurry, I am jus

Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1

Linux64 bit builds for de and en-US (dpkg and rpm) can be found at http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ these are builds of AOO42X HEAD and just to check that desktop integration is fixed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-un

Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1

Any feedback yet? > On Apr 1, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Linux64 bit builds for de and en-US (dpkg and rpm) can be found at > >http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ > > these are builds of AOO42X HEAD and just to check that > desk

Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1

Do our Betas implement desktop integration? There is a var in openoffice.lst called ADDSYSTEMINTEGRATION which is set to 1 for real builds and 0 for Beta builds and missing for Dev builds. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...

Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1

> On Apr 3, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 03.04.19 um 17:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Do our Betas implement desktop integration? > I really don't know (for Linux), I only tested Beta builds on Windows. >> T

Linux desktop integration an Dev builds (Was: Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1)

Linux 64bit builds for en-US and de (both dpkg and rpm) can be found at: http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/Dev-r1856914/ These SHOULD fix the desktop integration issues with Linux builds when building Dev and/or Beta releases. Please try asap and let me know how these work. TIA! --

Re: Linux desktop integration an Dev builds (Was: Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1)

> On Apr 4, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: > > Hi Jim, all > >> Linux 64bit builds for en-US and de (both dpkg and rpm) can >> be found at: >> >>http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/Dev-r1856914/ >> >> These SHOULD fix the desktop integration issues with Linux >> builds when buil

Re: Linux desktop integration an Dev builds (Was: Re: 4.2.0-dev-m1)

1:39 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 04.04.19 um 20:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Linux 64bit builds for en-US and de (both dpkg and rpm) can >> be found at: >> >>http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/Dev-r1856914/ >> >> These SHO

Re: New languages for AOO 4.2.0?

Just a FYI that the list of langs we build for are set in the build scripts located in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.2.0-Dev1 so we need to ensure that if we do decide to add new langs (or remove old ones) to keep those scripts in sync. --

hyperlinks in docs

I'm trying to figure out where in the codebase which module is responsible for "handling" behaviors when someone clicks a hyperlink in a doc. Any ideas on where to look? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache

Re: hyperlinks in docs

s://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Architecture as an entry point to > document where I can find what. > > > What I fail to understand why we do not have an hyperlink object. > > HTH > > Peter > > On 01.05.19 11:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I'm trying to figu

Re: tomcat and Opengrok

Maybe ping the Tomcat PMC? > On May 2, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > Hello all, > > > I need help with this OpenGrok. I have installed the tomcat, Opengrok, > filled the Opengrok config best to my knowledge. I do not know what to > do next. > > does anyone have convenience scripts

Re: hyperlinks in docs

So far, no luck, but I'm still digging... :/ > On May 1, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > THX! > >> On May 1, 2019, at 6:52 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> I am not sure. >> >> there is a function OpenHyperlin

Re: 32-bit buildbots

I can, and will, provide 32bit Linux builds on CentOS5, CentOS7 and Ubuntu 14.04 > On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Infra does not provide 32-bit slaves anymore, so we will not have new > builds for Linux32 here: > > https://www.openoffice.org/download/dev

Re: 32-bit buildbots

Matthias > > > Am 01.07.19 um 17:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> I can, and will, provide 32bit Linux builds on CentOS5, CentOS7 and Ubuntu >> 14.04 >> >>> On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Matthias Seidel >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, &g

Re: 32-bit buildbots

; > Meanwhile we are trying to get the buildbots working again: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17822 > > Regards, > >Matthias > > Am 23.07.19 um 18:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> You got it... for 4.1.7 or 4.2.0-dev? >> >>> On Jul

Re: 32-bit buildbots

building the Linux build as we speak > On Jul 23, 2019, at 1:58 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Yes... ;-) > > This should be r1863580. en-US and de if possible. > > Thanks! > > Am 23.07.19 um 19:26 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> You got it... I will be

Re: 32-bit buildbots

Uploading to: http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ as we speak... Cheers!

Re: svn commit: r1865164 - /openoffice/branches/AOO417/main/sal/osl/unx/nlsupport.c

Personally, I think migrating from svn to git while in the midst of also trying to cut a release was somewhat unwise... As far as SVN being read only, obviously I was able to commit to the AOO417 branch. So I've no idea what the status is... I was just as surprised, but since my entire macOS (an

Re: [openoffice] branch AOO417 updated: Sync w/ SVN

/asf/openoffice.git >> >> >> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/AOO417 by this push: >> new 4aba5f8 Sync w/ SVN >> 4aba5f8 is described below >> >> commit 4aba5f85ea42f3f097b6465edfd2f848bb5ed4b3 >> Author: Jim Jagielski >>

Re: get Revision from Git (short Hash)

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Matthias Seidel wrote: >> We already have the build id, the build >> date and now the git hash (which is a unique link to the last commit it >> was based on) >> This is how we did it with SVN, why should we change it? > > Because we a

Re: Broken tools from GIT migration

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 2:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > 3) Open Hub tracker https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice > > "Our SVN tree is read by the Open Hub tracker to generate some various > statistics. Note that the migration from the legacy Mercurial repository to > SVN at Apache has cau

Re: get Revision from Git (short Hash)

>> >>> Hi Kay, >>> >>> Am 15.08.19 um 00:02 schrieb Kay Schenk: >>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:24 PM Marcus wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 14.08.19 um 22:02 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at

Re: get Revision from Git (short Hash)

That's exactly what I did ;) > On Aug 15, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Mechtilde wrote: > > Hello, > > we should commit to trunk and if that code should also be in 42x or 417 > we can cherry- pick the commit. > > regards > > Mechtilde > > Am 15.08.19 um 14

Re: AOO 4.1.7

> On Aug 24, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have created an empty directory structure for AOO 4.1.7 RC1: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.7-RC1/ > > This is just in advance... Thx > > But thinking about it: > We create a source build

Re: AOO 4.1.7

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> @Jim: Can you try to do a source build (I think you did it on macOS)? > > Will do! Grr once again, I cannot find that magic incantation required to do a source build... Anyone h

Re: AOO 4.1.7

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> On Aug 26, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> >>> @Jim: Can you try to do a source build (I think you did it on macOS)? >> >> Will do! > > Grr once

Re: AOO 4.1.7

> On Aug 24, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have created an empty directory structure for AOO 4.1.7 RC1: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.7-RC1/ > > This is just in advance... > > But thinking about it: > We create a source build at the

Re: AOO 4.1.7

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 26.08.19 um 14:49 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> >>> On Aug 24, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Matthias Seidel >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>

Re: ApacheConNA

I'll be there! > On Aug 25, 2019, at 6:18 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > I seem to have a good gap in my medical treatments covering early September, > so I am planning to attend the ApacheCon in Las Vegas. I would like to meet > any other OpenOffice interested people who will be there. > >

Re: Release Candidate for AOO 4.1.7?

Sounds good. I can likely have them ready before ACNA19. If not, then the Linux and macOS builds will need to wait until I return, which should not be a problem. > On Sep 4, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 03/09/2019 Matthias Seidel wrote: >> I think it is time to do our (firs

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

The test builds and source code can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.7-RC1/ Cheers! > On Sep 11, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Pedro Lino wrote: > > Maybe I am confused: Where is RC1? I believe we tested

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

If RC1 passes, and I do think it is a Good Idea to have a longer-than-normal vote, then the macOS and Windows builds will move, as-is, to the release state; The Linux binaries will be rebuilt, but with no code changes at all, to fix the git short-hash inconsistency between macOS/Win and the Linu

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

I think the normal 3days makes sense... What does everyone else think? > On Sep 12, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > How long will you allow for testing of the Linux builds between the rebuild > and releasing them? > > Patricia > >> On Sep 11, 20

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

Just a FYI: I have committed replacement builds for Linux32 and Linux64 and these are now on https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.7-RC1/ There were no code changes at all. I simply rebuilt after setting git config --global core.abbrev 10 to ensure that the Git short ha

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

Cast vote > On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:31 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > Hi all, > > > In order to finalize the release, I jump in for Jim, who is traveling. :-) > > Please take your vote. > > The Release Candidate is good for production: > > [X] yes / +1 > > [ ] no / -1 > > My vote is based on >

Re: git revision missing when building 4.1.7 from the source tarball

> On Sep 18, 2019, at 1:43 AM, Don Lewis wrote: > > If you build 4.1.7 starting with the source tarball, the git revision > isn't included in the build result because the source tarball doesn't > include the .git directory. That is needed so that 'git log' can find > the most recent commit has

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

available to enable the download on Friday evening or from Saturday early > afternoon on over the weekend (all European time). > > Marcus > > > >> Am 16.09.19 um 15:13 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> Cast vote >>> >>>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:31 AM, Peter K

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

OK, thanks. Once I find, again, the 4.1.7-RC1 release Wiki page, I'll start the process :) > On Sep 19, 2019, at 5:03 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 19.09.19 um 23:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Has anyone tested the rebuilt Linux distros? > Yes, I did. Forgot t

[VOTE CLOSED] Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

FTR: The Vote is now CLOSED with the result that releasing AOO417-RC1 as AOO417-GA is approved. As such, I will now start the Upload process as per: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release#HowtoCookaRelease-Uploads -

Re: [VOTE CLOSED] [vote] AOO417-RC1​

do you think? > > Marcus > > > >> Am 20.09.19 um 17:29 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>> Am 20.09.19 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>> FTR: The Vote is now CLOSED with the result that releasing AOO417-RC1 as >>>> AOO417-GA is approved. &g

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

I have an idea on how to include the git hash on the source distro... will try to work on it this week. > On Sep 26, 2019, at 7:58 PM, Don Lewis wrote: > > On 26 Sep, Matthias Seidel wrote: >> Hi Don, >> >> Am 20.09.19 um 06:47 schrieb Don Lewis: >>> Prioritizing the publication of the source

Re: [vote] AOO417-RC1​

m SVN to Git. > > We have AC_REVISION( $Revision$ ) in configure.ac. Maybe we can replace > the logic [1]. > > Regards, > >Matthias > > [1] > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8215785/how-can-i-use-ac-revision-with-git/8216176 > > > Am 30.09.19 um 19:14 s

Re: [openoffice] branch trunk updated: Upgrade bundled expat to 2.2.9.

I'm confused... from what I can see this just affected trunk. So how is it breaking AOO42X? Did you apply the patch to your local copy? > On Oct 3, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Don, > > Am 03.10.19 um 07:01 schrieb Don Lewis: >> On 2 Oct, Don Lewis wrote: >>> On 2 Oct,

trunk cui build failure - macOS

= Building module cui = Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/aoo-git/main/cui/prj cd .. && make -s -r -j6 && make -s -r deliverlog /Users/jim/src/asf/aoo-git/main/cui/Library_cui.mk:37: *** target pattern contains no '%'. Stop. dmake: Error code 2, while making '

Re: git revision missing when building 4.1.7 from the source tarball

Done in 27a447d8e738b70f74ab05606693d7139127efc4 > On Sep 19, 2019, at 8:25 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Am 19.09.19 um 13:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> On Sep 18, 2019, at 1:43 AM, Don Lewis wrote: >>> >>> If you build 4.

Re: git revision missing when building 4.1.7 from the source tarball

Here is the logic of the patch: Basically, at build time, the same system in place to get the "repo version" is used... During the build it checks to see if the build is based on a git checkout and, if so, uses the short hash. If not a git repo, it sees if it's SVN and uses that. If neither, th

Re: [openoffice] branch trunk updated: protect empty vars - fix https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/2d5709ddcf2cff97da30b2b98b71afda0c77781e

mit/2d5709ddcf2cff97da30b2b98b71afda0c77781e > > 8b5576c is described below > > > > commit 8b5576ce2f085d55bb1b6ad191acef7e88814942 > > Author: Jim Jagielski > > AuthorDate: Thu Oct 3 12:15:28 2019 -0400 > > > > protect empty vars - fix > > https://github.com/apache/openof

Re: [openoffice] branch trunk updated: protect empty vars - fix https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/2d5709ddcf2cff97da30b2b98b71afda0c77781e

No prob: > On Oct 4, 2019, at 2:57 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Thanks, could you also expand the "Page" panel? > > Am 04.10.19 um 20:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> >> >>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Jim Jagielski >> <mailto:j.

Re: [openoffice] branch trunk updated: protect empty vars - fix https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/2d5709ddcf2cff97da30b2b98b71afda0c77781e

Let me know if you want me to kick off another... I have the VMs up and running. > On Oct 4, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Thanks, looks (almost) as expected! ;-) > > Am 04.10.19 um 21:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> No prob: >> >> >>

Re: [macsupport] macOS X 10.15 Catalina - Notarization

With 4.1.x we use Xcode 7 and w/ 4.2.x and later we do use Xcode 10, BUT we use Xcode 10 with the 10.11SDK installed. The requirement for the 10.11SDK (and no later) is due to Quicktime which is no longer provided in later SDKs, so for full compliance, we'd need to remove that dependency and use

Re: [macsupport] macOS X 10.15 Catalina - Notarization

In the meantime, I think it makes sense for me to get my OSX build machine setup to allow for notarization. I do have an Apple developer's account already, but should we also create one with our apache.org account? Or can we do all this w/ our personal dev account? --

Re: [macsupport] macOS X 10.15 Catalina - Notarization

Just a FYI that upgrading the build server from macOS 10.13 (High Sierra) to 10.14 (Mojave) breaks the ability to build AOO completely, even if we keep Xcode10. Since the build VM must stay at 10.13, this means we cannot use Xcode11 at all. ---

Re: [macsupport] macOS X 10.15 Catalina - Notarization

Working on a work-around... watch this space. > On Oct 18, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Just a FYI that upgrading the build server from macOS 10.13 (High Sierra) to > 10.14 (Mojave) breaks the ability to build AOO completely, even if we keep > Xcode10. > &g

Re: Mac Builds

Yes, please. I've been playing around and some issues are related to how, in moving to Mojave/Catalina, Apple removed some *.o files from /usr/lib, as well as some issues related to Xcode11 in general. I was hoping to have a single setup that allows for both 4.1.x and 4.2.x+later but that doesn'

Re: Mac Builds

building w/ Mojave/Catalina and Xcode11 that would be great. > On Oct 19, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Yes, please. I've been playing around and some issues are related to how, in > moving to Mojave/Catalina, Apple removed some *.o files from /usr/lib, as >

Re: Mac Builds

and later is another discussion. I agree that if we can start building > w/ Mojave/Catalina and Xcode11 that would be great. > >> On Oct 19, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Yes, please. I've been playing around and some issues are related to how, in >

Re: [macsupport] macOS X 10.15 Catalina - Notarization

things over for developers... This whole Xcode11 business is crazy. > On Oct 19, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Working on a work-around... watch this space. > >> On Oct 18, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Just a FYI that upgrading the

Re: Mac Builds

> On Oct 19, 2019, at 8:54 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Yes, please. I've been playing around and some issues are related to how, in >> moving to Mojave/Catalina, A

Re: Mac Builds

> On Oct 19, 2019, at 8:54 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile > wrote: > > MACOSX_SDK_PATH="/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.15.sdk" > I usually do: MACOSX_SDK_PATH=`xcrun --show-sdk-path` --

Re: [macsupport] macOS X 10.15 Catalina - Notarization

After installing /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/Packages/macOS_SDK_headers_for_macOS_10.14.pkg on my Mojave/Xcode11.1 system, I am now progressing w/ a 4.1.8-dev build exactly as done previously on High Sierra/Xcode10.3 (and 10.7 as min macOS)... So far no issues. The biggest point i

Re: OpenGrok

> On Oct 18, 2019, at 7:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > > I would not complain if we pushed the current version of MacOS to something > more recent than 10.7 Lion. > That is the minimum supported version of macOS for AOO to *run on*... We build on much more recent versions of macOS. And, of

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >