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: [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: [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: [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" <orc...@apache.org> 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" <orc...@apache.org> 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: [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" <orc...@apache.org> 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" <orc...@apache.org> 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" <orc...@apache.org> 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 <ofarr...@iol.ie>

-
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.

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

[Andrea Pescetti]

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

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

[Marcus]

Am 25.01.2017 um 09:28 schrieb Dr. Michael Stehmann:

Am 24.01.2017 um 23:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:


I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of
"privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make
available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux
variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we as
a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit patches
upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD).

I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't
think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much here.
For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user expects
that "supported" means "available in binary form from the official site
for this platform" then neither is supported.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in
favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding
that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD
release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that
for OS/2 either).


Ok, we have two categories of "support" for platformes:

1. those, for which we build and make available releases

2. those, that are aligned, submit patches upstream and so on

IMO we should communicate these two categories of "support" clearly, so
the user knows very well, what "support" in his/hers case mean.


before finding categories and its names, we need to make the several 
attributes visible that describe "supported":


- Official binary downloads
- Maintained (bugfixes) by developers
- Improved (new feaures) by developers
- Regular builds from buildbots
- User help available by community

However, to do 2 things at once here are some possible name combinations 
to differenciate:


- Primary - Secondary
- Full - Partly
- Premium - Normal
- Complete - Limited

Has anybody else additions for the lists?

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?

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 24.01.2017 um 23:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

> 
> I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of
> "privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make
> available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux
> variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we as
> a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit patches
> upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD).
> 
> I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't
> think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much here.
> For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user expects
> that "supported" means "available in binary form from the official site
> for this platform" then neither is supported.
> 
> Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in
> favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding
> that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD
> release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that
> for OS/2 either).

Ok, we have two categories of "support" for platformes:

1. those, for which we build and make available releases

2. those, that are aligned, submit patches upstream and so on

IMO we should communicate these two categories of "support" clearly, so
the user knows very well, what "support" in his/hers case mean.

Kind regards
Michael




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 01/24/17 , Marcus wrote:

Am 24.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Pedro Giffuni:

Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure so I
will ask here:


I don't know every ASF policy. But I would guess it's up to the PMC to
define it. And we don't have a formal procedure.



Yes, I was wondering if there was some OOo guidelines we could follow.


But I think we should agree commonly what "supported platform" means and
what we understand. So, a short list of requirements would be helpful.
This will then be put into the Wiki for future reference.


FreeBSD is AFAICT, the only OS that ships AOO in it's official releases,
we have also been adding new features including (recently) support for
the PowerPC. This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases,
although we have a buildbot and I would expect, and it fact it happens,
that there is developer diligence in fixing breakages it detects.


Here I see some points for the requirements list. And "supported" could
mean it's not automatically available for download.



Well, I understand Apache Projects define binaries as release
"artifacts" and not part of a  a release itself. What matters is the
sourcecode release, so technically speaking binary releases are not 
critical.


There's also the issue that we don't (yet) support reproducible builds,
so even if we sign binaries, our binaries are not trustable.


Would anyone have some insight about any particular policy within the
project, or perhaps can I go ahead and add FreeBSD to the list for 4.2?


I see it as what Andrea and Matthias wrote so far. But I would say,
let's discuss what we want.



I agree with Andrea that there are different levels of what one could 
consider "support". If we just consider our capacity to generate

binaries and test them, I would say both OS/2 an MacOS X are under risk
of becoming unsupported in the near future.


BTW:
Offering binary builds for FreeBSD doesn't make sense as the normal way
would be to get the OpenOffice as source (the so-called ports) from a
FreeBSD server, compile it yourself and then just use it. So,
downloading and installing binaries is not the normal way. Do I remember
right?



I certainly don't want/need binary releases for FreeBSD. "Support" in 
FreeBSD's case would be something mostly symbolical, an indication

that OpenOffice in FreeBSD is expected to perform as well as in linux.

A parallel question is what supporting officially a platform involves:
it would mean we are willing to issue CVE's if the platform is affected,
and perhaps also that an error on such selected platforms may be 
considered a release blocker. We don't really follow any of those

criteria for OS/2, and when 4.2.0 was discussed we were about to
overrule the later for MacOS X.

As food for thought: my guess is that supporting officially a platform
should also merit some specific field when reporting bugs in bugzilla.

Just my $0.02,

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]

If I look at https://openoffice.apache.org/ (at the end of the page)
FreeBSD is mentioned, OS/2 is not.

So I think it is just a matter of updating and synchronizing the two
pages...

Regards, Matthias


Am 24.01.2017 um 23:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
>> MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
>> list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure
>
> I don't think there is a formal procedure. OS/2 and FreeBSD should
> have the same status in the README.
>
>> This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases
>
> I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of
> "privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make
> available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux
> variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we
> as a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit
> patches upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD).
>
> I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't
> think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much
> here. For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user
> expects that "supported" means "available in binary form from the
> official site for this platform" then neither is supported.
>
> Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in
> favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding
> that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD
> release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that
> for OS/2 either).
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> 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?

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Our README states that currently supported platforms include: Windows,
MacOS X, Linux variants and OS/2. I would like to add FreeBSD to the
list. I have no idea if such status requires some formal procedure


I don't think there is a formal procedure. OS/2 and FreeBSD should have 
the same status in the README.



This would not imply the ASF doing binary releases


I see some risk of confusion here. I mean, there is surely a set of 
"privileged" platforms that are those for which we build and make 
available releases from our download page: Windows, MacOS X, and Linux 
variants. Then there is a set of "semi-privileged" platforms where we as 
a project do not build releases, but that are aligned, submit patches 
upstream and so on (and these would be OS/2 and FreeBSD).


I don't know which group should be considered "supported" and I don't 
think that reading policy or sending tons of links would help much here. 
For sure if OS/2 is supported then FreeBSD is too. But if a user expects 
that "supported" means "available in binary form from the official site 
for this platform" then neither is supported.


Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this and I would be in 
favor of adding FreeBSD to the "supported" list with the understanding 
that this doesn't automatically imply that we will build a FreeBSD 
release and make it available from the official site (we don't do that 
for OS/2 either).


Regards,
  Andrea.

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