Am 08/13/2016 10:39 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 08/13/2016 09:46 AM, Marcus wrote:
Am 08/13/2016 06:24 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 08/13/2016 07:00 AM, Marcus wrote:
Here are my tests:
Linux 32-bit:
- ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed
- MD5, SHA1 are OK [1]
- ZIP ASC is OK (signature from Kay Schenk)
- Library ASC is OK (signature from Ariel Constenla-Haile)
Linux 64-bit:
- ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed
- MD5, SHA1 are OK [1]
- ZIP ASC is OK (signature from Kay Schenk)
- Library ASC is OK (signature from Ariel Constenla-Haile)
Mac OSX:
- ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed
- MD5, SHA1 are OK [1]
- ZIP ASC is OK (signature from Kay Schenk)
- Library ASC is OK (signature from Ariel Constenla-Haile)
However, after rewriting the files (of course without to modify the hash
values itself) the comparsion was OK.
@Kay:
I've uploaded the sha256 hash files as suggested.
YAY! Good job!
Do you mind when I
overwrite the other hash files with the ones I've created? Then all have
the same format.
No, go right ahead. With the openssl with digest options, this is how
they got formatted.
OK, done
Furthermore, I've read the Readme's for Linux [2] and Mac. As I didn't
wanted to simply overwrite your work, I've attached the modified
versions. So, you can review them first or I can overwrite them if you
don't mind.
I assumed this part --
"Download the hotfix ZIP file to a location on your PC where it can be
used and its content extracted.
Example:
User Jane downloaded and extracted the hotfix ZIP file from her browser
window and saved it in a folder called "Downloads". The full path is:
/home/jane/Downloads"
would be on the hotfix page itself so not needed as part of the actual
instructions. The rest of the changes look fine.
OK, but when we keep the Readme's also outside of the ZIP files it could
make sense to keep this text part.
Otherwise I can delete the part and just upload the Readme's.
Marcus
OK, upload this new version of README to be outside the zip. Otherwise,
we need to redo the zips, recompute checksums etc.
Thanks again for re-doing the checksums.
I know it's some effort. But having 2 different Readme files for the
same platform is not optimal. I've added some more details, so it's
easier to follow the instructions.
I've uploaded the 3 Readme files.
Marcus
[1] The files are not well formatted for the "md5sum" and "sha1sum"
commands. They need the following format:
<hash value><space><space><file name>
[2] The Readmes for Linux 32-bit and 64-bit are the same. I've just
attached the one for 32-bit.
Marcus
Am 08/12/2016 06:21 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Marcus<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
Am 08/11/2016 09:50 PM, schrieb Kay sch...@apache.org:
On 08/09/2016 02:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
[top posting]
I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32,
Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the
actual
HOTFIX page, we need to have just a "general" instruction for ALL
zips
that simply says -- "Unzip this package to some folder of your
choosing
and read the README that's included." Everything else should be
in the
various READMEs for each platform.
I should be done with all edits by this evening for a final review
before zipping and signing.
Ok, I've now moved on to creating zip files, etc for Linux32, Linux64
and Mac.
My openssl version on does NOT supply digest sha256. Is it OK to use
sha1? MD5 already computed for each of these.
I like to have it consistent for all platforms. Therefore I'll
check the
ZIPs and deliver the sha256 hash files.
Marcus
Thanks a bunch Marcus!
On 08/05/2016 09:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1
[TESTING].
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for
Windows
Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
[ ... ]
hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.
Should we get started on these?
it depends what we want that they should contain. The ZIP file for
Windows contains a LICENSE and NOTICE file as well as an ASC file
for
the DLL. As it is only a patch IMHO we don't need to provide
another
LICENSE and NOTICE file which is already available in the
OpenOffice
installation. Also the ASC is not necessary as we provide it
already
(together with MD5 and SHA256) for the whole ZIP file.
[orcmid]
I think there is a misunderstanding. Two matters:
1. The use of LICENSE is required by the ALv2 itself, and
the ASF
practice is to include NOTICE as well on binary distributions.
The patch
qualifies, especially when it is moved to general distribution.
It is also
easy and harmless to provide.
2. The reason for preserving the .asc on the shared-library
binary is
because it authenticates with respect to who produced it and
establishes
that it has not been modified as supplied in the package (or as
the result
of some glitch in creation of the Zip). It provides a level of
accountability and, also, auditability.
Even though few people will check all of these, they remain
possible to
be checked. Since this is a matter of security vulnerabilities and
involves elevation of privilege to perform, I believe it is
important to
demonstrate diligence and care, so that users have confidence in
this
procedure to the extent they are comfortable. Also, if it becomes
necessary to troubleshoot a problem with these patch applications,
we have
the means to authenticate what they are using to ensure there
are no
counterfeits being offered to users.
That means that only the README and library file remains.
When the README for Windows keep its length then I don't want to
copy
this on the dowload webpage. ;-)
So, when we put the README for all platforms in their ZIP files
then we
can just put a pointer to it on the download webpage and thats it.
[orcmid]
Yes, that seems like a fine idea. The README can be linked the
same
way the .md5, .sha256, and .asc are linked.
Also, the README may become simpler if we can link to some of the
information and not have so much detail in the README text
itself. It
might even be useful to have an .html README for that matter. But
that is
all extra. Right now I think we want to get into the testing and
see how
to smooth what we have.
PS: A friend of mine is looking into the MacOSX situation. He
points
out that one can use the Finder to do the job without users having
to use
Terminal sessions. I don't have further information at this time.
PPS: The inclusion of scripts that do the job is also worthy of
consideration, perhaps making it unnecessary to build
executables. I will
be looking at finding a .bat file that works safely for the
Windows case.
That can make the instructions much shorter :).
To cut a long story short:
I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
