Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi Cor, On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:30 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Thanks for your comments, and sorry for the delay on my side. Excellent work :-) * Here is a 2nd draft: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Use_of_MailList pretty ready for use, IMHO ;-) Sure - lets make it official, and iterate / improve it as needed. * Linked it from the main dev wiki page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development#Developer_mail_list_-_how_to_use I guess we need Thorsten (or someone) to add it to the mailing list description / subscription process - so people know what they're getting. 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Michael Meeks wrote: I guess we need Thorsten (or someone) to add it to the mailing list description / subscription process - so people know what they're getting. Done - link in the description, and in the welcome mail. -- Thorsten pgplZDqIFlHlo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Thorsten Behrens wrote (06-05-11 14:02) Done - link in the description, and in the welcome mail. Fine that it is helpful - that many may read and use it :-) Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi Michael, Michael Meeks wrote (28-04-11 18:05) Reading this again I missed a few obvious pieces: Thanks for your comments, and sorry for the delay on my side. * Here is a 2nd draft: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Use_of_MailList pretty ready for use, IMHO ;-) * Linked it from the main dev wiki page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development#Developer_mail_list_-_how_to_use * Not (yet) linked from the dev-FAQ page. Kind regards, Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
But can you tell me that you *really* aren't aware of the OOo-dev builds build process? You developed on OOo: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper Sure, I am/was a registered domain developer, but I always worked in the ooo-build a.k.a. go-oo build mechanism. Never the upstream OOo one. And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except Hamburg? and in the release notes for Developer Snapshots has been the following (for quite some time): http://development.openoffice.org/releases/3.4beta.html This snapshot build will install as OOo-Dev I have never installed any (what used to be) upstream OOo developer snapshot.. Trust me, this thread is the first time I hear about OOo-Dev. --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi NoOp, On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 18:43 -0700, NoOp wrote: I'm not a developer, but I consider my self to be an above-average user/tester with exeperience in installing, bug reporting et al on OOo and more recently LO. I can/do install test versions on everything from linux to Win (2K, XP, and Wn7) in both standard native partitions Virtual Machines. I think that Cor Nouows will attest to that. Well - testing is most useful; of course, and we value that. However - I just gave you a lot more information on how to help debug this issue in more detail: and - it seems you bailed out on doing the research, and helping to provide enough information to (easily) fix it. The most basic console output tells you, and other devs, exactly what the issues are. If someone building LO Beta releases can't figure out the issue from there then I'm pretty much at a loss. Sure - it is not a matter of ability, simply one of time. It is also an interesting opportunity for you to contribute something more than a simple bug reports: FWIW, we have no shortage of bug reports :-) It is also a way for us to judge your aptitude, and the effectiveness of your contribution. Going back to the OP and the premise of providing LO Beta/RC as Installing beta versions replacing stable versions packages: you already know the answer to this - it's been done on OOo versions for a very long time. Are you telling the users on this thread that you a uaware of the ooo-dev builds and how they are/were accomplished? Sure - they were for the most part built in a proprietary build environment by a very small number of Hamburg release engineers, AFAIR - though, to be honest I have so little interest in that magic process that I have no idea of the state of it these days :-) It may surprise you to learn that, while I have hacked on -lots- of diverse pieces of LibreOffice (and much else), that I simply cannot remember everything: so I have to research, and re-learn each piece I turn to that needs fixing. This takes time; sometimes lots of time. If it requires going near Windows - it is a nightmare; apparently (from the rest of the thread) this 'oodev' build which is supposedly so easy - simply fails to build, even on more manageable platforms. I snip the more colourfully unpleasant language, and baseless accusations from your mail. It seems amazing to you that I ask you to do some more digging into a bug which you view as incredibly important - in order to help fix it. This is a shame - I spent some time writing notes to you on how to do that. By immoderately criticising the product (which developers identify quite strongly with), you will make the developers very unhappy. As such - they will react really badly; this should not be surprising. Furthermore, to noisily point at bugs which you view as mind-blowingly serious, while not being willing to help out by providing enough information to make fixing them trivial is a curious combination. tml quote Yes, Tor is quite floral in his critique :-) On the other hand, hopefully, by reading, and considering his response, it is easy to see how your E-mails can be interpreted as personal attacks, and adapt your style such that they are not seen that way. Substantially this is a matter of style, not substance. The fact that he shows you how he feels when he receives your mail at least shows that he is still reading it - which IMHO is a good sign given the content :-) So - I'd encourage you to re-consider, and get really stuck into the team working on improving things - I'd also like to encourage you to treat those carrying a lot of the burden doing a lot of the work (like Tor) with unusual respect - it makes them happy again :-) ATB, 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi Tor, Tor Lillqvist wrote (28-04-11 10:48) But can you tell me that you *really* aren't aware of the OOo-dev builds build process? You developed on OOo: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper Sure, I am/was a registered domain developer, but I always worked in the ooo-build a.k.a. go-oo build mechanism. Never the upstream OOo one. And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except Hamburg? Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install snap-shots, dev builds, betas or however they were called, to test, without having trouble in special installing actions and/or loosing stable versions. Many many issues were reported from users/testers working with those. Me (and others) always promoted working with those dev-builds, cause it was an easy way to find bugs relatively early, which eases fixing and helps preventing regressions. I have never installed any (what used to be) upstream OOo developer snapshot.. Trust me, this thread is the first time I hear about OOo-Dev. Apparently, in all our enthusiasm and work, we did not yet tell each other enough about our backgrounds and so more. Regards, Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except Hamburg? Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install snap-shots, dev builds, betas or however they were called, I meant, were such builds *produced* by anyone except the Hamburg guys? I do believe they were *used* by lots of people in the Sun/Oracle OOo community. --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Tor Lillqvist wrote (28-04-11 14:50) And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except Hamburg? Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install snap-shots, dev builds, betas or however they were called, I meant, were such builds *produced* by anyone except the Hamburg guys? I do believe they were *used* by lots of people in the Sun/Oracle OOo community. Oh, sorry, can't answer that question. -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Tor Lillqvist wrote (28-04-11 14:50) And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except Hamburg? Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install snap-shots, dev builds, betas or however they were called, I meant, were such builds *produced* by anyone except the Hamburg guys? I do believe they were *used* by lots of people in the Sun/Oracle OOo community. Oh, sorry, can't answer that question. Maho did provide the Mac builds as dev variant (rcs of course as regular ones), I myself used it (but I wasn't providing builds regularily, just on specific occasion/request), not sure whether Pavel did also provide dev-variants (never used them and I'm too lazy to search in mail-archives/on ftp-server) ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 00:21 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Do we already have a simple text on the website/wiki, that explains the use of the developer list, and what expectations are? That might be linked to by devs when needed, thus preventing them to get bored or 'funny' or wasting time on this. It might be linked in the footer of this list? If there isn't any (I can't find it) I'll be glad to write a proposal. I think we should do this. At least, I would like to prevent normal usage issues and bug reports from creeping up on this list. There are clearly better facilities for those things. But we do need to state somewhere in bold and italic that what posts are appropriate and what aren't, for the developer list. Otherwise the number of such posts will only increase. 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Kohei Yoshida wrote (28-04-11 16:53) On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 00:21 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Do we already have a simple text on the website/wiki, that explains the use of the developer list, and what expectations are? That might be linked to by devs when needed, thus preventing them to get bored or 'funny' or wasting time on this. It might be linked in the footer of this list? If there isn't any (I can't find it) I'll be glad to write a proposal. I think we should do this. At least, I would like to prevent normal usage issues and bug reports from creeping up on this list. There are clearly better facilities for those things. But we do need to state somewhere in bold and italic that what posts are appropriate and what aren't, for the developer list. Otherwise the number of such posts will only increase. I placed a first draft here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Cornouws Looking forward to comments, ideas, .. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi Cor, On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 17:05 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: I placed a first draft here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Cornouws Looking forward to comments, ideas, .. Its a great start; can you put it in a public place so it can be jointly edited ? One of my bug-bears is people being lazy and not editing context, and thus forcing people to read endless waffle with '+1' at the end, or a single line of added mail. So I would have as #1 * The people reading this list are exceedingly busy. Posters should be polite, by cutting all un-necessary context from their mails. Replying to a large mail, including the context and adding a '+1', or a short comment is simply rude. Hackers have fast, threaded mail readers - please remove all the context. * Again - every extra word sent to the mailing list reduces the programming team's effectiveness: and costs us all, so choose your words carefully. To help you do that: + re-read your mail before sending it. * the Reporting Bugs link - is good; I would add + This mailing list is -not- a suitable forum for reporting bugs, or feature requests *unless* - you are actively soliciting feedback on how best to fix them *yourself* + It is particularly not a good place to report your views on the general quality, completeness etc. of the software - unless connected with actively working to improve the code. Other than that, looks good - I'd number the points so we can refer to them easily :-) Thanks for getting that done Cor ! ATB, 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Reading this again I missed a few obvious pieces: * Listen before speaking + get to know the people you're interacting with on the lists before sending mail + in particular, attempting to explain things to people that are experts already has the potential to make both you look very foolish, and provoke a bad reaction. Check the git logs. * Don't tell people what to do + volunteers often react quite badly to being told what to do; instead of telling others - start doing it yourself and encourage others to join you. I guess, just common-sense for beginners - but no harm in writing it down :-) 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process. Thanks for the mind-reading, but I think you need to try harder. For the record, I have never heard about that. --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
2011/4/26 Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On 04/26/2011 07:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote: Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 LO3.4B2 .deb installs failed on my systems (miserably yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend [...] So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome. If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback. There probably aren't any patches necessary, just try whether the openofficedev target works (I suspect it does, but cannot test now myself, as master is not buildable right now) $ cd instsetoo_native/util $ dmake openofficedev Currently it does not work out of the box but it can be fixed. I tested libreoffice-3-4 branch. On Linux it complains about SO_PACK environment variable which is not set. But some packages are built anyway. Install prefix is /opt/lo-dev/. On Windows it wants to package jre which is not there. So: $ touch ../../solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/jre-6u22-windows-i586.exe $ dmake openofficedev And it packages LibO-dev! It can be installed parallel to LibreOffice. Note: I tried en-US only. It would have taken ages to build all languages on my current Windows box. After some fixing and testing on master this target can be used in next beta cycle. Best regards, Andras ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Christian Lohmaier wrote: There probably aren't any patches necessary, just try whether the openofficedev target works Thanks Christian, that's the ~sole bit of really useful info in this whole thread. FWIW, the relevant bug is https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36437 Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpiiyrJdPv7S.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
NoOp wrote: The OP requested that beta versions be installed w/o affecting existing version. You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process. You are well aware of the issue, Yet you are asking posters to this thread to dig out the documentation, test that it still works? Amazing. Hi NoOp, well, developer time is (still) a scarce resource here, so we cannot but encourage everyone to go an extra mile to provide actionable input to any request posted here. Your mail was perceived as a X doesn't work, but it's soo obvious how to fix it, so go ahead and fix it ASAP - while in fact seldomly anything in LibO is really obvious, but needs at least some searching hunting down. So your post was not considered actionable. I guess both sides here took the other one's remark as condescending, which is unfortunate. The upshot is, Christian dug out the openoffice-dev target, which should do exactly what's needed. Let's try to get into that kind of productive mode right away, next time. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpadln2VNpzW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
HI Andras, *, On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Andras Timar tima...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/4/26 Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: There probably aren't any patches necessary, just try whether the openofficedev target works (I suspect it does, but cannot test now myself, as master is not buildable right now) $ cd instsetoo_native/util $ dmake openofficedev Currently it does not work out of the box but it can be fixed. I tested libreoffice-3-4 branch. On Linux it complains about SO_PACK environment variable which is not set. But some packages are built anyway. Install prefix is /opt/lo-dev/. SO_PACK should only be necessary when building the withJRE variant On Windows it wants to package jre which is not there. So: $ touch ../../solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/jre-6u22-windows-i586.exe $ dmake openofficedev OK, so there's a bug. It should only attempt to include the JRE when you build openofficewithjre target - so apparently the Product name used when building the dev version triggers the inclusion of the JRE. Very likely because of the JAVAPRODUCT 1 in the openoffice.lst for the dev product. Also XPDINSTALLER is set to 1 (IIRC this is used to create a java based installer that installs the RPMs - and thus not really needed either) And it packages LibO-dev! It can be installed parallel to LibreOffice. Note: I tried en-US only. It would have taken ages to build all languages on my current Windows box. To build a single language: dmake openofficedev_language or build the languagepack with dmake oodevlanguagepack_language After some fixing and testing on master this target can be used in next beta cycle. Esp. things to test: How webhelp works with dev-versions (is it supported at all, or shall users download offline help for those) ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On Windows it wants to package jre which is not there. So: $ touch ../../solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/jre-6u22-windows-i586.exe $ dmake openofficedev OK, so there's a bug. It should only attempt to include the JRE when you build openofficewithjre target - so apparently the Product name used when building the dev version triggers the inclusion of the JRE. At one point, the Sun guys decided that all Dev versions of OpenOffice would include the JRE, while release builds would be distributed both with and without the JRE. So this was intentional at one time, but I agree it should be undone. To take this a step further, if it were up to me, I would make all Dev builds *not* include the JRE, since LO will use an existing JRE if one is installed, and that will generally be the case (a JRE was probably installed with the last release version of LO). Just in case though, if no JRE is installed, LO will give the user a warning message when it is run and the user can download and install the JRE separately. This should be sufficient for Dev builds. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi all, Thorsten Behrens wrote (27-04-11 10:42) Thanks Christian, that's the ~sole bit of really useful info in this whole thread. FWIW, the relevant bug is Furthermore, with due respect, this thread shows me some other useful information. Namely that there is a limit to what developers may expect from users/testers, and in the way they can write to them, without the risk alienating them. Don't get me wrong: I am all for explaining users/testers that developer time is limited and help is appreciated. Also there is no problem with suggesting users/testers that they might be able to lend a hand, and that with some pointers from a developer, it might even be not too difficult. But pls be careful. If any user/tester for any reason (time, skills, preference, hair color, ...) writes that he/she does will not give more help with a specific issue, we can only respect that and be thankful for the help already given. More pressure then just light, friendly persuasion, can drive users/testers from us. And we need them too. Do we already have a simple text on the website/wiki, that explains the use of the developer list, and what expectations are? That might be linked to by devs when needed, thus preventing them to get bored or 'funny' or wasting time on this. It might be linked in the footer of this list? If there isn't any (I can't find it) I'll be glad to write a proposal. Thanks, Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Linking in the footer of the list is a good idea I think. Also, why not give a description (and list of expectations) of the developer list at the dev list signup page and at the mailing list description page? Seems like knowing the rules _before_ engaging would be useful. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/ http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Hi all, Thorsten Behrens wrote (27-04-11 10:42) Thanks Christian, that's the ~sole bit of really useful info in this whole thread. FWIW, the relevant bug is Furthermore, with due respect, this thread shows me some other useful information. Namely that there is a limit to what developers may expect from users/testers, and in the way they can write to them, without the risk alienating them. Don't get me wrong: I am all for explaining users/testers that developer time is limited and help is appreciated. Also there is no problem with suggesting users/testers that they might be able to lend a hand, and that with some pointers from a developer, it might even be not too difficult. But pls be careful. If any user/tester for any reason (time, skills, preference, hair color, ...) writes that he/she does will not give more help with a specific issue, we can only respect that and be thankful for the help already given. More pressure then just light, friendly persuasion, can drive users/testers from us. And we need them too. Do we already have a simple text on the website/wiki, that explains the use of the developer list, and what expectations are? That might be linked to by devs when needed, thus preventing them to get bored or 'funny' or wasting time on this. It might be linked in the footer of this list? If there isn't any (I can't find it) I'll be glad to write a proposal. Thanks, Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On 04/26/2011 11:54 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote: You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process. Thanks for the mind-reading, but I think you need to try harder. For the record, I have never heard about that. --tml I was replying to MM. But come on Tor; I've great respect for you and the code you provide to this and other projects (Gimp, GTK, et al). But can you tell me that you *really* aren't aware of the OOo-dev builds build process? You developed on OOo: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543996 and in the release notes for Developer Snapshots has been the following (for quite some time): http://development.openoffice.org/releases/3.4beta.html This snapshot build will install as OOo-Dev It matters not whether it is linux or Windows. In any event, this is OT and I'll not take any more time cluttering up this list. I'll ensure that the door doesn't hit me on the way out. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi NoOp, On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote: Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 LO3.4B2 .deb installs failed on my systems (miserably yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend So - if you have a Linux system, and you're capable of installing packages; then most likely you are able to climb the cliff of digging around to work out how to package them for a different prefix - right ? :-) So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome. If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback. I find the response to Ed's post/comments/request on this list to be 'disturbing'. This is not a list for reporting random bugs on; of course Tor could have just pointed him at bugzilla :-) but the reality is that we are trying to do a lot of work, with very few resources and criticism is hard to take under those circumstances. Concrete help is much more appreciated. The it is easy, you must be a moron attitude is -particularly- unhelpful. It is far better to do the bit of real work, study, research, code reading, etc. yourself than write some long mail we all get to read complaining about the lack of developer time to fix bugs ;-) 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
I would +100 this suggestion. AFAIK, under Windows, there is no easy way to do a side-by-side installation, and certainly no way within the reach of a typical user. Without the ability to do a side-by-side, many users are not going to test the Beta builds, and the quality of the release will suffer. I would propose that all Beta and Dev releases (which are sorely needed BTW, since the recent Beta releases have been Dev quality, not Beta quality) would install to a Dev location, and only the RC's and final releases would install to the release location. AFAIK (at least for the predecessor project OpenOffice.org), there is (was?) a well-documented switch that changed the product name and installation location. Under Windows, it would for example change the UpgradeCode property in the Windows Installer file, the program base directory path and base registry key, and the ProductKey and UserInstallation values in bootstrap.ini. These parameters need to be set and tested by the person who creates the build. I'm not sure if a patch is needed, but even if it is, there would need to be a commitment to use it and an understanding how it would be used. If we come to such an agreement and a patch is needed, I would be happy to look into it, but in order to prevent that effort from being wasted, IMO, we should discuss and agree first on whether this is something we want to do. Thank you, Allen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On 04/26/2011 07:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi NoOp, On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote: Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 LO3.4B2 .deb installs failed on my systems (miserably yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend So - if you have a Linux system, and you're capable of installing packages; then most likely you are able to climb the cliff of digging around to work out how to package them for a different prefix - right ? :-) So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome. If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback. Right... https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31747#c7 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=46059 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi Allen, On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 11:30 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: I would +100 this suggestion. Brilliant - the way to +100 is to write a patch :-) and/or test the feature so we can be sure it will work. I would propose that all Beta and Dev releases So - we have one more Beta left - which just got tagged, and is prolly building now - so, discovering this switch now is perhaps not so useful :-) Having said that it would be good for tinderbox builds I guess. If it is documented - it would be good to have some pointers to the documentation. AFAIK (at least for the predecessor project OpenOffice.org), there is (was?) a well-documented switch that changed the product name and Fine - so, dig out the documentation, test that it still works - and then we can turn it on. I would focus your testing on Windows - since that is the nightmare platform to build for / on / with / debug / find developers for / etc. Though it would be nice if it worked on Linux / Mac too of course. These parameters need to be set and tested by the person who creates the build. I’m not sure if a patch is needed, but even if it is, there would need to be a commitment to use Using it is fine: if it works. First it needs digging out, and then it needs testing - by someone - who can build, and perhaps debug on Windows. Every little change is easy, until the windows building part hits - at which point you suddenly realise that life is not so fun ;-) and that all that easy stuff becomes like wading through treacle. So - certainly, it'll be used - it is a good idea - no-one is against it in principle. What I am against is being told how to spend the next day or several, and/or delaying our build process onto a detour into the long grass, for a feature that will not be useful post the last Beta (being worked on now). Having said that - you're a bright chap :-) it'd be great to have you looking into this and/or working on it; all patches gratefully received. ATB, 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi NoOp, On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:05 -0700, NoOp wrote: So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome. If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback. Right... https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31747#c7 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=46059 Great - the most basic console output; it is a start of course. But this is really only a scratch into a rich seam of research: Unpacking libobasis3.4-ogltrans (from libobasis3.4-ogltrans_3.4.0-103_i386.deb) ... dpkg: error processing libobasis3.4-ogltrans_3.4.0-103_i386.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/opt/libreoffice/basis3.4/share/config/soffice.cfg/simpress/transitions-ogl.xml', which is also in package libobasis3.4-impress 3.4.0-103 Sounds like we need to grep for 'transitions-ogl' goodness inside our packaging code - please have a grep around in the scp2/ module and see what you can find there, to make a prototype fix. Setting up libreoffice3-dict-en (3.4.0-103) ... /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/ure-link/bin/javaldx: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/ure/bin/../lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3: undefined symbol: _ZTIN9salhelper21SimpleReferenceObjectE, version UDK_3_0_0 /opt/libreoffice/program/unopkg.bin: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/program/libxcrli.so: undefined symbol: _ZN4cppu11OWeakObject12queryAdapterEv, version UDK_3_0_0 find: `/opt/libreoffice/./share/prereg/bundled': No such file or directory Setting up libreoffice3-dict-es (3.4.0-103) ... Also looks odd; we need more information on what symbols the libraries export; find that with: objdump -T foo.so - and hunt around for the symbols it mentions. Similarly where this 'find ... bundled' comes from in the source is worth digging out: use './g grep prereg/bundled' and dig through it I guess. The more information we have, and the better the detective job - the more we understand, the more obvious the fix will become. None of this work is beyond the wit of someone competent at installing things from the console as you are :-) 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] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On 04/26/2011 07:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote: Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 LO3.4B2 .deb installs failed on my systems (miserably yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend [...] So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome. If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback. There probably aren't any patches necessary, just try whether the openofficedev target works (I suspect it does, but cannot test now myself, as master is not buildable right now) Right... https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31747#c7 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=46059 This is again a different issue. Please file a seperate one for the symbol lookup error (can reproduce that with RPMs as well): [...] 42/60: libreoffice3-dict-en /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/ure-link/bin/javaldx: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/ure/bin/../lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3: undefined symbol: _ZTIN9salhelper21SimpleReferenceObjectE, version UDK_3_0_0 /opt/libreoffice/program/unopkg.bin: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/program/libxcrli.so: undefined symbol: _ZN4cppu11OWeakObject12queryAdapterEv, version UDK_3_0_0 43/60: libreoffice3-dict-es /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/ure-link/bin/javaldx: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/ure/bin/../lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3: undefined symbol: _ZTIN9salhelper21SimpleReferenceObjectE, version UDK_3_0_0 /opt/libreoffice/program/unopkg.bin: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/program/libxcrli.so: undefined symbol: _ZN4cppu11OWeakObject12queryAdapterEv, version UDK_3_0_0 [...] Make the title something like installing dictionary packages trigger symbol lookup error messages javaldx as well as unopkg.bin aren't happy - one misses _ZTIN9salhelper21SimpleReferenceObjectE, the other one _ZN4cppu11OWeakObject12queryAdapterEv ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Hi *, On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: trying to overwrite '/opt/libreoffice/basis3.4/share/config/soffice.cfg/simpress/transitions-ogl.xml', which is also in package libobasis3.4-impress 3.4.0-103 Don't bother with that one, it's already fixed. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36493 ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On 04/26/2011 02:39 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi NoOp, On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:05 -0700, NoOp wrote: So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome. If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback. Right... https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31747#c7 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=46059 Great - the most basic console output; it is a start of course. But this is really only a scratch into a rich seam of research: Unpacking libobasis3.4-ogltrans (from libobasis3.4-ogltrans_3.4.0-103_i386.deb) ... dpkg: error processing libobasis3.4-ogltrans_3.4.0-103_i386.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/opt/libreoffice/basis3.4/share/config/soffice.cfg/simpress/transitions-ogl.xml', which is also in package libobasis3.4-impress 3.4.0-103 Sounds like we need to grep for 'transitions-ogl' goodness inside our packaging code - please have a grep around in the scp2/ module and see what you can find there, to make a prototype fix. Setting up libreoffice3-dict-en (3.4.0-103) ... /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/ure-link/bin/javaldx: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/ure/bin/../lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3: undefined symbol: _ZTIN9salhelper21SimpleReferenceObjectE, version UDK_3_0_0 /opt/libreoffice/program/unopkg.bin: symbol lookup error: /opt/libreoffice/program/../basis-link/program/libxcrli.so: undefined symbol: _ZN4cppu11OWeakObject12queryAdapterEv, version UDK_3_0_0 find: `/opt/libreoffice/./share/prereg/bundled': No such file or directory Setting up libreoffice3-dict-es (3.4.0-103) ... Also looks odd; we need more information on what symbols the libraries export; find that with: objdump -T foo.so - and hunt around for the symbols it mentions. Similarly where this 'find ... bundled' comes from in the source is worth digging out: use './g grep prereg/bundled' and dig through it I guess. The more information we have, and the better the detective job - the more we understand, the more obvious the fix will become. None of this work is beyond the wit of someone competent at installing things from the console as you are :-) Thanks ! Michael. Thanks, but as I mentioned previously: I'm not a developer, but I consider my self to be an above-average user/tester with exeperience in installing, bug reporting et al on OOo and more recently LO. I can/do install test versions on everything from linux to Win (2K, XP, and Wn7) in both standard native partitions Virtual Machines. I think that Cor Nouows will attest to that. I certainly don't mind testing new or pre-release versions, but I'm not about to attempt patches or debugging (without specific instructions - and then only if I have time on a clean test machine). Fact of the matter is that the B1 and B2 .debs are borked. Bug reports have been filed or added to (by me, other users, devs). The most basic console output tells you, and other devs, exactly what the issues are. If someone building LO Beta releases can't figure out the issue from there then I'm pretty much at a loss. - Who tested the .deb files before release? - What distro did they test them on? - B1 reported similar issues, etc., etc. Going back to the OP and the premise of providing LO Beta/RC as Installing beta versions replacing stable versions packages: you already know the answer to this - it's been done on OOo versions for a very long time. Are you telling the users on this thread that you a uaware of the ooo-dev builds and how they are/were accomplished? Bottom line is that previously I didn't mind testing LO pre-release (B/RC) builds on my systems, contributing to LO bug reports, and/or assisting other users with LO. But quite frankly given your we can't see the forest for the trees response I see no reason to continue to do so. If your simple pre-release builds can't install and your dev's can't figure out the issue from the most basic console output then good luck. I don't mind assisting if I can, but I do mind the condescending: So - if you have a Linux system, and you're capable of installing packages; then most likely you are able to climb the cliff of digging around to work out how to package them for a different prefix - right ? :-) I *am* capable of installing packages. I *am* capable of trying LO Beta/RC packages. I *am* capable of telling you (and whatever dev) that the packages that *LO* put out fail (either on this list or in a bug report). I *am* capable of telling you (and all other devs) on this list that your B1 B2 .deb packages are crap. They fail, they do not install, they have already been reported and are documented in this thread. The OP requested that beta versions be installed w/o affecting existing version. You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process. You are well aware of the issue, Yet you are asking posters to this
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Ed: Would you please search for a bug report covering this topic - and if there is none, create one? I have raised issue https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36575, Allow parallel installation of Beta and stable releases And we need to add a warning to our homepage, that standard installation will erase the working productive version of LibreOffice (probably leading to less feedback than we hoped for). Yes it probably will lead to less feedback, but users should be allowed to make an informed decision on whether to test the beta packages, in the full knowledge that installing them will trash their office suite. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Can you please make sure that future developer builds are compiled to install in a separate folder and do not disturb previously installed stable versions. Anything is possible. It is just a small matter of programming. Maybe you could help? --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
PS: Ed: this is a list where developers discuss developer issues. It is not intended for people to bring up ideas/wishes .. You may do so, but (part of) the answer always is: can you help ;-) Cor Tor Lillqvist wrote (22-04-11 12:21) set when compiling the product. I'm not sure [...] why any help is needed. Yeah. Maybe if you just wish hard enough your dream will come true. -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a coherent, constructive contribution to the issue! What help do you need? I am not the one who compiles that packages, so I am not in a position to change settings that have to be changed while compiling. When the code for LO was adapted from OOo you managed to change it to install in the LibreOffice directory rather than the OpenOffice.org directory, and to set LO not to overwrite OOo. Now you need to do exactly the same thing you've already done to set LO-dev to install in a different directory to LO, and not to overwrite LO. Tor Lillqvist wrote: set when compiling the product. I'm not sure [...] why any help is needed. Yeah. Maybe if you just wish hard enough your dream will come true. --tml - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3589 - Release Date: 04/21/11 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a coherent, constructive contribution to the issue! That is because I am basically an incoherent dribbling idiot, la la la, na na splutgh xzbbpfft! Me wants more porridge! --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
Tor Lillqvist schrieb: Ed Drinkwater wrote: What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a coherent, constructive contribution to the issue! That is because I am basically an incoherent dribbling idiot, la la la, na na splutgh xzbbpfft! Me wants more porridge! Sometimes it's much better to hit the delete button instead of send. Parallel installation of daily builds has been discussed a few days ago (I don't remember the list), where one of the core developers (Björn?) described that this is not trivial, but an important issue for LibreOffice. Betas are much more important for our public recognition - but this might not be seen by some developers. This list is not dedicated for discussions on missing features: If there is need for a discussion, the topic should be raised on the marketing list (I don't think that this is necessary here). If the task is already clear, just go on to bugzilla. Ed: Would you please search for a bug report covering this topic - and if there is none, create one? I hope a developer could look into the problem to determine, if this topic would be able to serve as easy hack, so it might be picked by a volunteer. And we need to add a warning to our homepage, that standard installation will erase the working productive version of LibreOffice (probably leading to less feedback than we hoped for). I'll send a mail to our website list... Best regards Bernhard ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
