Op 29-10-2010 16:22, plino schreef:
I'm not a programmer but something is puzzling me: why is LibreOffice
compiled with MS VC++ compiler?
Only LibreOffice for Windows is.
The reason is probably that it is the best compiler to produce programs
for Windows with.
This forces the installer to
In the spirit of Open Source it doesn't make any sense that a closed source
compiler is used.
This means that the script available to compile the Windows version,
requires you to either use the limited free version from Microsoft or to buy
a the full version from them...
Currently MinGW-W64 is
Hello Andrea,
Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:10:07 +0200,
Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.org a écrit :
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for
code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far
the right decision: Many
Hi,
Am 31.10.2010 11:40, schrieb Gianluca Turconi:
my question is rather simple: will LibO use in the future versions
(post 3.3) a ODF strict format or an extended one?
We are going to do the same as OOo did. Default would be ODF 1.2
extendend (to allow e.g. comments in Impress, additional
Ciao Gianluca,
I think your question would be better asked to the developers' mailing
list, but I will nonetheless try to answer it here:
- there is no extended ODF version, unless of course you refer to the
extended ODF format used in OpenOffice.org. This specific version
had been enabled
Op 31-10-2010 12:09, plino schreef:
In the spirit of Open Source it doesn't make any sense that a closed source
compiler is used.
Not any less sense than that a closed source OS is needed to run the
program...
This means that the script available to compile the Windows version,
requires you
Thanks to you and André for your replies.
See below for further comments.
Il 31/10/2010 12.52, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
[...]
I think your question would be better asked to the developers' mailing
list, but I will nonetheless try to answer it here:
- there is no extended ODF version,
Hi *,
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a programmer but something is puzzling me: why is LibreOffice
compiled with MS VC++ compiler? This forces the installer to include the
VC++ runtimes...
Wouldn't it make more sense to use the FOSS compiler MinGW?
@Simon, so therefore I should not use Open Source programs because I'm using
a closed source OS?
Don't you see how absurd it is to need to BUY a compiler to compile a FREE
program? Then what is the point if the source is open and I can modify it
but can't compile it because I can't afford the
Op 31-10-2010 15:20, plino schreef:
@Simon, so therefore I should not use Open Source programs because I'm using
a closed source OS?
When did I ever suggest such a thing?
Don't you see how absurd it is to need to BUY a compiler to compile a FREE
program?
If that were the case, I might, but it
Gianluca,
Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:08:37 +0100,
Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit :
Thanks to you and André for your replies.
See below for further comments.
Il 31/10/2010 12.52, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
[...]
I think your question would be better asked to
Medellin, October 31 2010
Hi, guys
+1
I`s unacceptable, must be set available.
Cordialmente,
Luis E. Vásquez R.
OpenOffice.org Volunteer Support
Este mensaje se ha enviado desde Medellín, Colombia
*10 Años usando exitosamente OpenOffice.org libre, seguro y abierto*
2010/10/31 Erich
Which is free (as in beer) for as long as Microsoft wishes. Plus it is no
longer updated and creating a script for VC 2010 requires changes. Finally,
the free VC version does not create x64 builds which I hope LO starts
producing since most (all?) modern CPUs are 64bit...
Last week I made the
30.10.2010 19:44, Andy Brown пишет:
Who had the bright idea to require the non-removable extensions in
LibreOffice? This, IMO, is totally uncalled for. This is a great way to
lose users.
Andy
They are removable by administrator -on Linux they can be removed
through the package manager? and
On Sun Oct 31 2010 09:51:03 GMT-0700 (PDT) fyva wrote:
30.10.2010 19:44, Andy Brown пишет:
Who had the bright idea to require the non-removable extensions in
LibreOffice? This, IMO, is totally uncalled for. This is a great way to
lose users.
Andy
They are removable by administrator -on
Medellin, October 2010
I think this option should be restored to the previous via managed by the
Extension Manager. Not only is the simplest but also the fastest way to do
it.
My question now is: There will be similar changes in other areas of Libre
Office?
Cordialmente,
Luis E. Vásquez R.
31.10.2010 13:15, Andy Brown пишет:
On Sun Oct 31 2010 09:51:03 GMT-0700 (PDT) fyva wrote:
30.10.2010 19:44, Andy Brown пишет:
Who had the bright idea to require the non-removable extensions in
LibreOffice? This, IMO, is totally uncalled for. This is a great way to
lose users.
Andy
They
plino wrote:
All the developers agree that we should use open source compilers, and
this will happen. But it's not ready for production yet, so probably
the next few versions for Windows will still be using the Microsoft
compilers. It depends on how many people volunteer to work on that.
Actually the trackers did work. Technically. But the people managing it
didn't.
One of the bugs I reported (which is now obsolete, but still there) caused
that a user would loose data without being warned. The bug was raised from
the usual P3 level to P2 (meaning it would have to be fixed before
See this: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113374
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are
31.10.2010 13:29, Luis E Vásquez r пишет:
Medellin, October 2010
I think this option should be restored to the previous via managed by the
Extension Manager. Not only is the simplest but also the fastest way to do
it.
My question now is: There will be similar changes in other areas of Libre
2010/10/30 David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz
Hi, :-)
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 06:52, Christoph Noack
christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
So I wonder whether there is some interest to form some kind of interest
group or even a dedicated UX team. At least, there might be better
Hi Christoph,
2010/10/30 Christoph Noack christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org
Hi Ivan, Mirek, all!
I really would like to overcome my previous telegram style messages
and to focus on topics like that I'm very much interested in. Sadly,
time is still very limited, so (a bit late) a big
Le 2010-10-31 16:19, Mirek M. a écrit :
2010/10/31 Andy Browna...@the-martin-byrd.net
On Sun Oct 31 2010 09:51:03 GMT-0700 (PDT) fyva wrote:
30.10.2010 19:44, Andy Brown пишет:
Who had the bright idea to require the non-removable extensions in
LibreOffice? This, IMO, is totally uncalled
31.10.2010 18:32, Erich Christian пишет:
They are not listed in the 'change' dialogue, there is a topic called
extensions (de: Erweiterungen) which got an X by default.
Set on true the installer 'copies new files' but the number of
extensions doesn't change and the next time you call setup it is
25 matches
Mail list logo
