Re: [Libreoffice] [steering-discuss] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
Hi Greg, On 04/06/2011 03:15, Greg Stein wrote: Hi all, I imagine you've all heard about the proposal[1] to contribute OO.o to the Apache Software Foundation. I've been involved with Apache for well over a decade, on its Board of Directors since 2001, its current Vice Chairman, the VP of Apache Subversion, and was the Chairman for five years. In short: lots of Apache experience. I've been following and participating in the discussion around the OO.o proposal on the gene...@incubator.apache.org list[1]. One of the threads of that discussion was to reach out to the people in the Document Foundation and the LibreOffice communities. So... that's this email. I'm now subscribed to discuss@df, steering-discuss@df, and libreoffice@freedesktop. I intend to lurk regarding all the regular work that you all are doing here. I'll be paying particular attention to any conversations or concerns that you may have about the OOo/Apache stuff, and will attempt to answer questions that you may have. I'm catching up on the archives now. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, then please feel free to direct them my way (on whatever list). I'm here to listen and understand, and to offer up answers where I can. A very warm welcome from my side. I'm subscribed to the general@incubator list too, but just lurk (and think ;) for the moment. To present myself a bit, I'm a member of the Steering Committee, a member of the Membership Committee and the liaison for TDF at SPI. I'm doing the French localization, I'm also working on other various tasks and areas on the project. I was in the OOo community since the creation of the project, member of the CC representing the NLC, lead of the FR project, I represented the OOo community before the AB. As you are on the most active lists of our project, don't hesitate to ask too if you have any question on concerns. Either directly to me or on any lists. Welcome again and thanks a lot for coming to visit us on our project, it is highly appreciated. Kind regards Sophie -- Founding member of The Document Foundation ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/4 Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org: As if understanding and using the old OOo build mechanisms which have been somewhat adapted at LO wasn't hard enough. As a user (with just a tiny contribution) I really wish that OO.o would just die already. It is not just that the current community are much more friendly and open to contributions now, it is also the codebase that is starting to become more sane and organized / accessible. In a while, it may even build without requiring your own Cray supercomputer and two PhDs. Why would people want to go back to the java-dominated obscure build system land that has cost so much to the project already? With TDF I think LibreOffice can make the equivalent of Netscape - Firefox transition. For me the sane thing for ASF is to either donate the OO.o name/trademarks in turn to TDF, so that maybe we can have the equivalent of gcc - egcs - gcc migration and the existing marketing efforts for OO.org don't go to waste, or just drop the whole thing and let it die in peace. I hope even IBM can see the light and start contributing to LibreOffice instead of trying to maintain the ugly beast that was OO.o on its own, or trying to divide the community (and thus generating bad publicity for both IBM and Oracle in the end, see LWN). Go Libre Office! We users love you! :) :) --- Pantelis ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 04.06.2011 6:06, Allen Pulsifer wrote: Among other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history of all code to ensure it has a clean title and is or can be licensed under the Apache License. A lurker is speaking here. AFAIU, one of the reasons why Go-Openoffice split from OOo, and why it merged back with LO later was copyright policy that forced all developers to give up copyright to Sun and let Sun release proprietary versions of OOo. AFAICS, LO does not have that requirement (plain LGPL, no strings attached), which is why, i presume, other OOo forks merged with it. Would developers of these forks split away from LO again now? Or will LO remain independent, committing only *parts* of its new code (from authors that are not opposed to Apache License) to ASF, while also keeping its own LGPL-only changes and their developers as well? I know that this can be technically done, and is legally sound, but the cost of juggling with a large number of patches (that might become incompatible with OOo as its development goes forward) might be too great. H-m-m-m...OTOH, joining ASF and contributing to OOo there might entitle TDF members to preserve OOo-LO compatibility. That is, make sure that OOo doesn't get code that breaks LO's own LGPL-only patches simply out of spite. On the third hand, this might not work very well for some things, as OOo might get its own implementations of LO's LGPL-only features, and these will be, obviously, mutually exclusive. I am not a OOo/LO developer, and i haven't been lurking long, but i would really like to see LO thriving, and i am very concerned. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Remaining translations of German comments from fdo#33424
Hello all,
After I've quick checked two attached patches in fdo#33424,
I found that those *refined* patches are committed,
so I marked the bug as fixed.
Anyway, there are some tiny parts that aren't committed yet,
which I don't know whether they're accidentally slipped, or
intentionally dropped.
So I attach that remaining parts for review.
Please feel free to comment :)
Thanks Albert Thuswaldner for his good work.
Best Regards,
--
Korrawit Pruegsanusak
From af5da4a4a7c63ca0ef45952d59cfd84714717fd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Korrawit Pruegsanusak detective.conan.1...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 16:57:06 +0700
Subject: [PATCH] Remaining translations of German comments from fdo#33424
---
sfx2/inc/sfx2/doctempl.hxx|2 +-
sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.cxx |2 +-
sfx2/source/dialog/templdlg.cxx |2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sfx2/inc/sfx2/doctempl.hxx b/sfx2/inc/sfx2/doctempl.hxx
index fdf4010..c5585e0 100644
--- a/sfx2/inc/sfx2/doctempl.hxx
+++ b/sfx2/inc/sfx2/doctempl.hxx
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ public:
static sal_Bool SaveDir( /*SfxTemplateDir rEntry */ ) ;
const SfxDocumentTemplates operator=(const SfxDocumentTemplates );
-sal_BoolRescan( ); // Aktualisieren
+sal_Bool Rescan( );
voidReInitFromComponent();
sal_BoolIsRegionLoaded( sal_uInt16 nIdx ) const;
diff --git a/sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.cxx b/sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.cxx
index c64d497..0a6569b 100644
--- a/sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.cxx
+++ b/sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.cxx
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ IMPL_STATIC_LINK( ShutdownIcon, DialogClosedHdl_Impl, FileDialogHelper*, EMPTYAR
{
DBG_ASSERT( pThis-m_pFileDlg, ShutdownIcon, DialogClosedHdl_Impl(): no file dialog );
-// use ctor for filling up filters automatically!
+// use constructor for filling up filters automatically!
if ( ERRCODE_NONE == pThis-m_pFileDlg-GetError() )
{
Reference XFilePicker xPicker = pThis-m_pFileDlg-GetFilePicker();
diff --git a/sfx2/source/dialog/templdlg.cxx b/sfx2/source/dialog/templdlg.cxx
index 5e93083..0c61333 100644
--- a/sfx2/source/dialog/templdlg.cxx
+++ b/sfx2/source/dialog/templdlg.cxx
@@ -886,7 +886,7 @@ void SfxCommonTemplateDialog_Impl::ReadResource()
case SFX_STYLE_FAMILY_FRAME:nSlot = SID_STYLE_FAMILY3; break;
case SFX_STYLE_FAMILY_PAGE: nSlot = SID_STYLE_FAMILY4; break;
case SFX_STYLE_FAMILY_PSEUDO: nSlot = SID_STYLE_FAMILY5; break;
-default: OSL_FAIL(unbekannte StyleFamily); break;
+default: OSL_FAIL(unknown StyleFamily); break;
}
pBoundItems[i] =
new SfxTemplateControllerItem(nSlot, *this, *pBindings);
--
1.7.0.4
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [REVIEW] templates and icons, small fixes
Hi Developers, I pushed two patches to master. If you agree please cherry-pick into 3-4 too. First one is related to templates and common (language independent) folder is introduced move default language independent layout templates - master http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/bootstrap/commit/?id=3ab65711d3ccd5ffcf8f94b5857bb48a872de05e http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core/commit/?id=faef37dc2c41b9183b91ceb06a72c6f11cc6dd65 Another one is a patch to always use libreoffice(version) as icon name. This will solve some problem of mine with packaged desktop files that dont have icons because of bad icon name. Using $(ICONPREFIX.libreoffice)- as icon prefix - master http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core/commit/?id=a7773033d4e3d14e42a614eae5318c5e5b245a6d Thank you in advance for review. Best regards, KAMI ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Trouble building the redland module on mac
Hi William, *, On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:07 PM, William Lachance wrl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: This does indeed look incorrect to my (inexperienced) eyes, but changing this doesn't seem to fix the issue. Indeed, as raptor's configure doesn't use seperate settings for this, but puts everything into CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS directly. Again, I think the problem is that we're not properly passing the correct CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS to raptor's configure. If no one knows why this might be offhand, I can always dig deeper. This should be fixed now, I pushed http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-extern/commit/?id=4a97a447960d97441d2e151f8ed10ccc4a1b8431 although this won't give a build of master yet, as other build-breakers occur. one is in automation cp: /Users/buildslave/compile/libreoffice/solver/350/unxmacxp.pro/res/img/stt*.ilst: No such file or directory (and for a few others) - easy enough to comment out, but I'd rather look for the cause why it breaks now and not previously, there's no point in just hiding a problem.. The other one I got was a breaker in starmath's cppunit test (apparently this is not mac-specific, see other thread) ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Allen Pulsifer wrote: Critically, at this stage in the process, everyone has a free pass to get involved. Hi Allen, I don't like free passes so much ... Normally, once the project is up and running, you would have to demonstrate your merit before you can join the project. But for the next few days, while the project is in the proposal stage, the gates are wide open--anyone can join as an initial member. Does that kinda imply the people who've already signed up may not have accumulated enough merit otherwise? ;) So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member. Since it's not even clear what code exactly is donated, and in what form, and whether at all the ASF would be able to release official binaries anytime soon - I'd personally rather be a bit more reluctant to sign my name under a proposal - that is in fact a blanket statement currently. Meanwhile, there's a lot of work to do over here - we've just released 3.4.0 (http://libreoffice.org/download), and 3.3.3 RC1 is uploading to the mirrors (look here for a non-mirrored preview: http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/). :) That's it. It does not obligate you to make any code contributions, but it will get you in on the ground floor and allow you to participate in the direction of the project. Ehh - Allen, that ground floor metaphor is an almost verbatim copy from IBM - you're not astroturfing here, are you? Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpVzssq3DGzr.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
If I understand correctly: What is developed by the Apache license can be used at LibreOffice but what is done by LibreOffice can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice would move to offer the principles of under the GPL. I'm not sure this is entirely correct. TDF allowed itself some license flexibility by asking that all contributions to LO be licensed under both the LGPL and the MPL. Originally, TDF took OOo code under the LGPL, combined it with dual licensed LGPL/MPL contributions, and licensed the combined work under the LGPL, as required by the LGPL. That situation will likely change in the near future. The original OOo code will shortly be released under the Apache License (AL). The Apache License allows anyone to take the code and use it in a proprietary work. Once the OOo code is released under the AL, I expect to see many people recompiling OOo and selling it, some with no modifications, some with their own proprietary closed-source enhancements. The Apache Foundation will also likely to be hosting an Apache OpenOffice project where people can make contributions to that codebase, with the contributions also licensed under the Apache License. TDF will be able to use those contributions in LO. Everyone else will also be able to use those contributions, in both open-source and proprietary projects. Here's the tricky part. With the release of the original OOo code under the Apache License, it may now be possible, depending on license compatibility, to take the original OOo under the AL, combine it with LO modifications under the MPL, and incorporate that code into a closed-source project. If that is possible, we may also soon see the LO code incorporated into proprietary products. I'm not an expert on the compatibility of these two licenses however, either with each other or with proprietary code. Can anyone offer an opinion or shed some light on this? Which of the following could occur, once the original OOo codebase is released under the Apache License? 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? Regardless of the above two situations, the Apache Software Foundation will not take LO modifications dual-licensed under the LGPL and MPL and include them in the Apache OpenOffice distribution. There may be no license barrier to that, but ASF has a policy barrier that prevents it: the ASF has a policy that all code distributed at the ASF must be licensed only under the Apache License. The ASF will not incorporate any code that requires a different license. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hello All, I'm going to try to address as many of the concerns raised as I can in one email. I'm not suggesting that anyone go work for IBM. In fact, I'm suggesting just the opposite; I'm suggesting that we all work together to get IBM working for us. Here's the deal. IBM is the main proponent of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project. They are doing this in their own self-interest. They want to get Apache Licensed contributions that they can use in their proprietary products. However, the OpenOffice code has been donated to the Apache Software Foundation, not to IBM. While IBM may want to exclusively run the project over at the ASF, if we want to get involved, the ASF is not going to allow IBM to dominate. We will have a say in how the Apache OpenOffice project evolves. I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I don't know what they will be. I don't know what contributions members of the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make. I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the project. We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM. Basically, we can get IBM working for us. If we wait however, we risk being locked out. The open invitation is get involved is only valid for during the incubation proposal stage. After that, we will need prove our merit and approval to become a member. So if you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation. IBM will be contributing as little or as much to the project as they want. They will be contributing some, and holding back some to use only in their proprietary products. The TDF community can do exactly the same thing--it can contribute some, while holding back some for LibreOffice only. This again can and will be worked out as the project evolves. So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can. But the time to jump in is now. We can't wait. Allen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Remove unused file in calc/sc
Hi, This patch removes dbtoken.hxx in calc/sc which doesn't seem to be used anywhere. At least libreoffice compiles fine after the file is removed. Jacek From 90f8acc4777ffa4643ae0068d936e187d0d4069d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jacek Wolszczak shutdownrun...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 15:04:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Remove unused file --- sc/inc/dbtoken.hxx | 56 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 sc/inc/dbtoken.hxx diff --git a/sc/inc/dbtoken.hxx b/sc/inc/dbtoken.hxx deleted file mode 100644 index 344fc02..000 --- a/sc/inc/dbtoken.hxx +++ /dev/null @@ -1,56 +0,0 @@ -/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 4 -*- */ -/* - * - * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. - * - * Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates. - * - * OpenOffice.org - a multi-platform office productivity suite - * - * This file is part of OpenOffice.org. - * - * OpenOffice.org is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify - * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 - * only, as published by the Free Software Foundation. - * - * OpenOffice.org is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the - * GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 for more details - * (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code). - * - * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License - * version 3 along with OpenOffice.org. If not, see - * http://www.openoffice.org/license.html - * for a copy of the LGPLv3 License. - * - / - -#ifndef _DBTOKEN_HXX -#define _DBTOKEN_HXX - -#include compiler.hxx - - -// SET DBG_TOKEN=string -// + - make new data -// - - do not make old data -// aA - dump old/new token array -// uU - dump old/new UPN array - -sal_Bool DbgToken( char ); -ScTokenArray* DbgMakeTokenArray -( ScDocument* pDoc, SCTAB nTab, const String r, sal_uInt16 rErr ); -void DbgDumpTokenArray( const sal_uInt8* pArr, sal_uInt16 nLen, const char* pMsg ); -void DbgDelTokenArray( ScTokenArray* ); -formula::StackVar DbgInterpret( ScDocument* pDok, const ScTokenArray* pToken, - SCCOL nCOL, SCROW nROW, SCTAB nTAB, - formula::StackVar eformula::StackVar, - char* rStringErgPtr, - double rDoubleErg, - sal_uInt16 rError, - ScMatrix** ppMat); - -#endif - -/* vim:set shiftwidth=4 softtabstop=4 expandtab: */ -- 1.7.3.4 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Allen Pulsifer wrote: But the time to jump in is now. We can't wait. What is that nonsense?! I can start contributing to Apache anytime I want - and it's not that the initial committers have *any* exclusive right on anything. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpY7ICP7LI9V.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Trouble building the redland module on mac
Hi Christian, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: not properly passing the correct CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS to raptor's configure. If no one knows why this might be offhand, I can always dig deeper. Again, I think the problem is that we're This should be fixed now, I pushed http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-extern/commit/?id=4a97a447960d97441d2e151f8ed10ccc4a1b8431 Unfortunately this didn't quite fix the problem for me, as there still seems to be other places in raptor's configure file which try to get libxml's include/library path from 'xml2-config'. Since the 10.4 SDK actually contains its own copy of xml2-config (in /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/bin), how about we just add it to the environment path when building? Something like the attached, maybe? It seems to fix the issue for me (hardcoding the SDK directory once again, but that's not really anything new). (I don't think copyright applies for such a trivial patch but just in case it does I'll proactively say I agree to license this change under the LGPLv3+ / MPL) -- William Lachance wrl...@gmail.com use-sdk-bin-dir-in-environment.patch Description: Binary data ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Trouble building the redland module on mac
Hi William, *, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, William Lachance wrl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-extern/commit/?id=4a97a447960d97441d2e151f8ed10ccc4a1b8431 Unfortunately this didn't quite fix the problem for me, as there still seems to be other places in raptor's configure file which try to get libxml's include/library path from 'xml2-config'. yes, it is called in different places, but that's the only place where its return value is acually reused. How did you check that it doesn't work for you? if you just pull, it is not enough, as the additional patch will not be applied, as the build thinks it already did pass that step. rm -rf unxmac* in redland, then try again please. Since the 10.4 SDK actually contains its own copy of xml2-config (in /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/bin), how about we just add it to the environment path when building? This is not included in all versions of the SDK, and even if it was, that version doesn't report the SDK path, but just the /usr/lib/libxml one just as the system-wide installed version. So there's nothing to gain here. And while both xslt-config and xml2-config have a prefix parameter that could be used, it is worthless as xslt-config call's xml2-config without passing down the prefix parameter. Something like the attached, maybe? It seems to fix the issue for me I doubt it rather than this chance fixing the problem, now in your rebuid my change is actually applied I guess. I don't have any /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/bin at all on PPC here, so your patch shouldn't make any difference at all. (see above according to Tor both xml2-config , no matter whether in the SDK or in the system report the same values, the SDK version doesn't prepend the SDK's path - so your patch cannot really have solved the problem. So please double-check whether my change really didn't solve the problem for you. ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
Well im no legal expert, but from what i understand of the LGPL/MPL licenses, they still are copyleft licenses, you can merge apache code and libreoffice code, make your own version if you want, sell it etc, but if you make any derivative work, you need to make those changes available to the rest, so i dont think its possible to make a closed source office suite with libreoffice code under LGPL/MPL. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH][PUSHED] Remove unused file in calc/sc
Hi Jacek, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jacek Wolszczak shutdownrun...@gmail.com wrote: This patch removes dbtoken.hxx in calc/sc which doesn't seem to be used anywhere. At least libreoffice compiles fine after the file is removed. Thanks, pushed. ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Allen, On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 22:06 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member. Just so you know, I've been following that thread on the Apache list by reading the archives, pretty much fully, so I have a pretty good idea of what's going on over there. I'll keep this short (but will probably end up being long anyway). It makes zero sense, for whatever reason, to join an entirely different project that someone else (in this case IBM) cares about when we have a perfectly live, vibrant, passionate and fun project to nurture, and that project already exists today. Just because the two projects used to share the same code base in the past doesn't mean anything here. We are different projects now, plain and simple. Suggesting that we somehow owe anything to them just because of the past is, to put it mildly insane, and in some way insulting. And let me put this in practical terms. Managing a project is a big chore. I have hard time keeping up with all these bug reports, patch reviews, helping other hackers, many releases, while at the same time trying to clean up and refactor the code base to modernize the code. Doing that in two projects would basically force me to cut back on that for this project. That would be a terrible disservice to those who believed in TDF and LibreOffice, not to mention that would be against my own will. And we have done some amazing things in the past 8 months, none of which is in the Apache OOo code base (whereever it may be right now). Telling us to forget all that and start from scratch is simply insane. Plus, I've been burned (as you probably know) by the stupid corporate bureaucracy trying to control the project in the past, with OOo project. So I am very cynical about a corporate participant promising to help a project in the future, promising to donate code at some unspecified time in the future. You may say but Apache is all about individuals. That's probably true, but where are those individuals who are working on IBM's Symphony product right now? Rob claims that they'll be working on Apache's OOo, but none of them are in the discussion right now. I don't doubt Rob's qualification, but I really doubt that Rob will be the one working on the code base. I'm sure he is too busy for that. I would be more comfortable if the individual hackers from IBM were openly speaking up in honest terms. But so far that's not happening. Also, the difficulty working on both projects also applies to the IBM Symphony team. I doubt they'll be working 100% on Apache OOo. So the obvious question is what percentage of their time is spent maintaining the Apache OOo code base? They claimed they'll allocate 35 engineers, but how much time they'll invest remains to be seen. Plus, managing a project is an on-going process; if they just dump some code from Symphony to Apache OOo every now and then without follow-up clean-ups and bug fixes, that wouldn't be called managing maintaining a product. That's just code dump. And lastly, folks over at Apache seems to underestimate the difficulty on bootstrapping this massive code base, setting up the repository and managing different branches and releases. Very little of that seems to be discussed. Talking from my experience, you can't manage this code base using Subversion unless you want to cut back heavily on productivity and efficiency. I believe we have managed to set up, and continue to improve our infrastructure over here. And I don't see a reason why we need to move to an imaginary infrastructure that's not even set up much less adequate. The only reason I would join over there would be if my employer wants to tie my hand and put a leech around my neck to drag me over there to the Apache OOo land. Then I would be working over there, with great reluctance. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc kyosh...@novell.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hello Kohei, Thank you for your reply. I can certainly understand your sentiment, and I completely respect it. Just to clarify one thing: Suggesting that we somehow owe anything to them just because of the past is, to put it mildly insane, and in some way insulting. I certainly never made such a suggestion and never would. I just want to make that clear in case you thought I did or if anyone reading your reply thought did. And if someone else made that suggestion, I would also be insulted by it, because it complete ignores the history and value of past community contributions. Best Regards, Allen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:59, Rafael Dominguez venccsra...@gmail.com wrote: Well im no legal expert, but from what i understand of the LGPL/MPL licenses, they still are copyleft licenses, you can merge apache code and libreoffice code, make your own version if you want, sell it etc, but if you make any derivative work, you need to make those changes available to the rest, so i dont think its possible to make a closed source office suite with libreoffice code under LGPL/MPL. A third party could do the following: 1. Core [from Apache], licensed under ALv2. 2. Features [from LO], licensed under MPL (you offer a choice, they pick MPL) 3. Proprietary stuff This package can then be sold. If they make modifications to the LO work, then they must release those changes. The third party is not obligated to release any changes to the Apache code, nor their proprietary code. Note that the LGPL operates similarly. A third party could take LO Core licensed under the LGPL and make releases, alongside proprietary code. They would need to release changes to the core, but it would still be possible *today*. The relink requirements under the LGPL get a bit annoying, but would still be possible. Cheers, -g ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Allen, On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 09:08 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: If we wait however, we risk being locked out. That is what Rob's blog tries to imply. My conversations with various key Apache leaders suggest that, on the contrary, their governance will -never- lock people out; it is guaranteed to be open to all contributors. Ergo - there will always be a place for new guys to be come committers, PMC members etc. Indeed, the incubation cannot succeed without a level of diversity that only LibreOffice has currently. So if you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation. The risk is, that we give credibility to an incredibly divisive move, and loose the clarity and unity we have currently around rejecting this hostile action :-) Beyond that I agree. They will be contributing some, and holding back some to use only in their proprietary products. The TDF community can do exactly the same thing--it can contribute some, while holding back some for LibreOffice only. The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating and fixing it. It would suck giant rocks (through a straw) to say: no copy-left lovers need think of working on X Y or Z big pieces of the code - since we want to license changes to these on to IBM (via Apache) :-) At least - I don't want to just push the division down into the code-base, excluding people from lots of it (and of course throwing away our changes to those pieces). So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can. My feeling is that incubator / 'initial committers' lists aside, the people doing the work will get the positions of authority: whatever Rob suggests to try to encourage people to sign up now. But the time to jump in is now. We can't wait. I have entirely the opposite view; it would be unfortunate to get involved now - and send an unhelpful message; still - everyone should do as they think best. Thanks :-) Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
Hi Michael, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. I guess it would be useful to create a wiki page with a FAQ about these license topics :) -- Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org Document Foundation founding member Mobile: +34 661 11 38 26 Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Android versions that we will compile LO for
Hey guys I am working with 2 other great individuals in regards to bring LO to android devices. The sdk has support for android version 1.5 all the way up to the latest 3.1 Question becomes what versions do we want to get cross compilation to work with? ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Greg, First - welcome to the list :-) we appreciate more hackers taking an interest in LibreOffice of course and really good to have you here. Patches most welcome too BTW :-) On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 00:21 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: Sure... I can also answer questions, and would be more than happy to do that. In any discussion threads that may pop up, about the Apache work, I'll also attempt to fill in blanks where I see them. Great - there is quite a big one here; Rob's blog's characterisation of Apache (pwrt. the advantages of 'getting in on the ground floor') has been interpreted by many as ASF rewarding people who join early disproportionately to their merit (as and against new people joining 'late') :-) I don't think that is Apache's intention or practise. Alan picked up on earlier on the list with (excerpted): On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 09:08 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the project. ... If we wait however, we risk being locked out. The open invitation is get involved is only valid for during the incubation proposal stage. After that, we will need prove our merit and approval to become a member. So if you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation. ... But the time to jump in is now. We can't wait. So the questions are: + if we wait, do we risk getting locked out ? + after the incubation proposal is accepted is it possible to become a committer ? + will people with relevant experience, contribution and merit find it possible to become committers later ? You see my answers on the list - I think Apache stays open and does it right, as a meritocracy, always :-) but it'd be good to back that with your authority and clear this up. The ground-floor stuff it seems can easily be twisted into a threat to exclude people that don't join day one :-) Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] KCachegrind
Hi Michael, Now, I think I have a very little knowledge of how things work in KCachegrind. And I started to doubt if it is possible to do what I thought should be done. (maybe everything is possible but it may be too complicated) I thought to hide a library we must: - all it's functions mark as hidden (and set their cost to 0 or something like that) - add their cost to callers But I think there are no special statistics from which function is every part of the cost, so it's not possible to add cost to the callers because we don't know how much for each caller. I think in the beginning when the callgrind data are loaded it could be possible. But then there is no way to hide function, except loading data again with keeping in mind some functions are hidden and that could be hard to achieve. Or not. I'm waiting for your opinion. It is pretty possible that I am wrong but if not I'd rather let it be because still you can view inclusive cost of each function and ignore some libraries. (I know it's not the same) Hope my mail (and thoughts) is understandable. Matus ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Remaining translations of German comments from fdo#33424
Hi Korrawit. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:09, Korrawit Pruegsanusak detective.conan.1...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, After I've quick checked two attached patches in fdo#33424, I found that those *refined* patches are committed, so I marked the bug as fixed. Anyway, there are some tiny parts that aren't committed yet, which I don't know whether they're accidentally slipped, or intentionally dropped. I think it was probably accidental due to a combination of humungous patch + merge issues. I promises to better in the future. :) So I attach that remaining parts for review. Please feel free to comment :) Thanks Albert Thuswaldner for his good work. Your welcome. And thanks for finding these left-overs. /Albert Best Regards, -- Korrawit Pruegsanusak ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
Le 2011-06-04 12:11, Michael Meeks a écrit : On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. HTH, Michael. I am not sure how much this would complicate it, but on Groklaw[1]: === Oracle is signing a SGA (Software Grant Agreement) giving the OpenOffice.org code to Apache Server Foundation (ASF) under the Apache 2.0 license. As you know, Oracle (via Sun) had ownership of the code via the CLA that they required from contributors. Oracle is also giving ASF the OpenOffice.org trademark, the logo with the birds, and the openoffice.org domain name. Some of this has happened already, some of it is in progress. Oracle appears to be retaining the copyright, not assigning it to Apache. The bottom line, then, if this is so, is that Oracle owns the code it is donating, thanks to a contribution agreement whereby contributors handed over copyright to Sun, now Oracle. And by retaining the copyright, it continues to own the code. Let this be an object lesson, that any time a project asks for all the copyrights, it can do what it pleases with your contributions. If you don't care, contribute as much as you wish. But do it knowing that it's like putting your baby up for adoption. You are not the parent any more afterward, so you don't get a say in anything. === This seems to be muddying up the waters even more. Cheers Marc [1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 --- Comment #133 from tommy27 ba...@quipo.it 2011-06-04 13:20:13 PDT --- I suggest adding this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37516 and fixing if in 3.4.1 release -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 --- Comment #134 from Jean-Baptiste Faure jbf.fa...@orange.fr 2011-06-04 13:36:56 PDT --- I nominate bug 37930 : it is a crash with the filepicker of Seven/Vista when you insert an hyperlink. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 Bug 35673 depends on bug 36301, which changed state. Bug 36301 Summary: Crash on exit from LibreOffice https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36301 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution|FIXED | Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Allen, *, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: [...] I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I don't know what they will be. I don't know what contributions members of the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make. Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press releases, that was ended up in OOo was basically nonexistent. As you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip service. The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/ needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!)) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the project. Not really, as you first have to surrender to the Apache's licence terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort. We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM. Basically, we can get IBM working for us. I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing? They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the abovementioned accessibility dump. But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few individual contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my point) I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/ idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a side-project/fork of OOo. So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM. (But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms, they will approve it as an incubator project) And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception now that nobody cares who enlists. IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually support the move. If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision. The only reason on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice did join go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion. So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can. What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice? ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 Bug 35673 depends on bug 36301, which changed state. Bug 36301 Summary: Crash on exit from LibreOffice https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36301 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||FIXED Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Lotuswordpro : Found duplicate if expressions in xfbookmarkref.cxx:75:85
Hello,
Here is the part of code :
if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkNone )
return;
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkPage )// -- Line 75
{
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(page) );
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name), m_strBookmark );
}
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkChapter )
{
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(chapter) );
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name), m_strBookmark );
}
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkPage ) // -- Line 85
{
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(text) );
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name), m_strBookmark );
}
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkDir )
{
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(direction) );
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name), m_strBookmark );
}
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkDef )
{
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name), m_strBookmark );
}
With opengrok, I found in xfdefs.hxx, this :
enum enumXFBookmarkRef
{
enumXFBookmarkNone, // Found this one
enumXFBookmarkPage, // Found this one and line 75 seems ok
enumXFBookmarkChapter, // Found this one
enumXFBookmarkDir, // Found this one
enumXFBookmarkDef // Found this one but seems incomplete
};
Just a guess, perhaps it needs this patch :
diff --git a/lotuswordpro/source/filter/xfilter/xfbookmarkref.cxx
b/lotuswordpro/source/filter/xfilter/xfbookmarkref.cxx
index 251274f..d5c2bb4 100644
--- a/lotuswordpro/source/filter/xfilter/xfbookmarkref.cxx
+++ b/lotuswordpro/source/filter/xfilter/xfbookmarkref.cxx
@@ -82,12 +82,6 @@ void XFBookmarkRef::ToXml(IXFStream *pStrm)
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(chapter) );
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name),
m_strBookmark );
}
-else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkPage )
-{
-pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(text) );
-pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name), m_strBookmark );
-
-}
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkDir )
{
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(direction) );
@@ -95,6 +89,7 @@ void XFBookmarkRef::ToXml(IXFStream *pStrm)
}
else if( m_eRefType == enumXFBookmarkDef )
{
+pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:reference-format),
A2OUSTR(text) );
pAttrList-AddAttribute( A2OUSTR(text:ref-name),
m_strBookmark );
}
pStrm-StartElement( A2OUSTR(text:bookmark-ref) );
Someone to comment ? If it's ok, I can, of course, commit this and push
it in master.
Julien.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Performance improvements for calcs' sheet actions
Hello Kohei, all, I've been looking a bit further into the performance problem when dealing with several sheets and am now at the move method.(ScDocument::MoveTab) We have there an ScProgress(for all: it's the calc version of a progress bar) which is called quite too often. We call for every column at every sheet ScProgress::SetState. So in the end we are there with number of tables * MAXCOL (which is 1024 at the moment) calls to SetState. (It gets even worse when we move several sheets at once: number of moved tables*number of tables*MAXCOL) I tried with 5000 empty tables and moving a sheet from the first position to the last(most work for the algorithm) and it turns out that we need much more time updating the progress bar than we need to move the sheet. So in my opinion there is no need for the progress bar but I like to hear your opinion on that too. I don't know if you remember that we have problems with the same progress bar in the unit test, so it would solve two problems at once. The other solution would be to update the progress bar only once per sheet and not once per column. I would like to here any suggestions before I change anything UI related. Regards, Markus P.S. We don't even use a ScProgress in ScDocument::CopyTab which should normally need much more time ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] New symbol in Math ?
Hi Just a simple question on adding new math symbols to LO Math. In a recent post in the info list, a professor asked to add the symbol ∄ non exist Unicode symbol: U+2204 THERE DOES NOT EXIST ∄ to Math elements windows. However, it looks like Math formulas are based on MathML 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/chapter4.html#contm.exists and no mention to There does not exists. Shall I imply that implementing this symbol will break the ODF Standard, and therefore should not be implemented? Thanks for the advise. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] New symbol in Math ?
The ODF 1.1 OASIS Standard and the ODF 1.2 Committee Specification 01 support MathML 2.0. There are fonts available in LibreOffice that have the symbol, so I don't think there is an issue with ODF. It may be an issue with MathML 2.0 though. You may have to settle for neg exists X which is logically equivalent, I trust, as in neg exists x [P(x)] There are provisions in MathML 2.0 for user-defined additions to the function and operator symbols, but I don't think LibreOffice Math has any provision for that. Specific ones could be wired into LibreOffice Math. I am not the one to offer an assessment of the feasibility and relative benefit of such an effort. - Dennis -Original Message- From: libreoffice-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:libreoffice-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Hallot Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 18:39 To: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: [Libreoffice] New symbol in Math ? Hi Just a simple question on adding new math symbols to LO Math. In a recent post in the info list, a professor asked to add the symbol ∄ non exist Unicode symbol: U+2204 THERE DOES NOT EXIST ∄ to Math elements windows. However, it looks like Math formulas are based on MathML 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/chapter4.html#contm.exists and no mention to There does not exists. Shall I imply that implementing this symbol will break the ODF Standard, and therefore should not be implemented? Thanks for the advise. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
