Please give me CWiki edit permissions

[Nikita Fernandez]

Hello,

 

Could you please provide Edit Permissions for username: kitafern for the
CWiki.


Thank you,

 

Re: [CWiki] new default access rights active

[Andrea Pescetti]

Steve Yin wrote:

I was hoping that if you could count me in. Thanks.
Full name: Steve Yin


Whitelisted:
~steve.yin Steve Yin

In general, I've now tried to whitelist all committers where I could 
confidently the Apache username and real name with the CWiki username, 
real name and contributions.


Of course, anybody (no matter if a committer or not) who needs editing 
rights on CWiki and does not have them even with these updates can 
request to be whitelisted here.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: The Number of Active Forum Administrators

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 15/10/2013 imacat wrote:

That means the following forums will need at least one
more administrator:  ...
* IT (Italian, Italiano)


As for the Italian forum, I believe we are covered by RGB now that he is 
an administrator on all forums: he is a regular poster on the Italian 
forum. If this is not enough, I can switch from global moderator to 
administrator as a backup of Paolo (in CC). But, besides the good 
practice of always having a backup, I think that we don't need more 
administrators to manage the duties on the Italian forum.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: The Number of Active Forum Administrators

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/10/18 imacat 

> On 2013/10/18 06:21, Ricardo Berlasso said:
> > 2013/10/16 Ricardo Berlasso 
> >> 2013/10/16 imacat 
> >>> On 2013/10/16 08:10, Ricardo Berlasso said:
>  2013/10/15 imacat 
> > Besides, I would like to call for help from another PMC member as
> > the administrator of all the 10 language forum, as a back up of me
> (and
> > so will I be the back up of you).  You don't need to understand all
> the
> > 10 languages. :p  You don't need to get involved into the actual
> forum
> > operation.  But it would be nice to have experience in forum
> operation
> > and communication (i.e. was a moderator somewhere for months).
> >
> 
>  If knowing the forum ACP and moderator panel is enough (I know nothing
>  about databases, servers and all those scaring things that run behind
> >>> the
>  forum software), you can count on me.
> >>>
> >>> That would be great! ^_^  Have you registered your account on all
> >>> the 10 forums?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just on three of them. Other than the ES forum, I'm registered on EN
> >> forums (user id: RGB) and on IT forums (user id: RGB-it). On the next
> >> couple of days I'll register on all the others.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, I just registered on all the other forums, always with RGB as user
> id.
>
> OK.  Done.  I have added you to both of the Administrators and
> Global moderators groups of all the 10 forum.  You may check.
>

Checked!

Regards,
Ricardo




>
> Welcome. ^_*'
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ricardo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ricardo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> 
>  Regards,
>  Ricardo
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > imacat ^_*' 
> > PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
> >
> > <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> > Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> > Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> > OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> > EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> > Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
> >
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> imacat ^_*' 
> >>> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
> >>>
> >>> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> >>> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> >>> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> >>> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> >>> EducOO/OOo4Kids  Taiwan
> >>> http://www.educoo.tw/
> >>> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' 
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>
>

Re: Open Office 4.01

[F C. Costero]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Slivka wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've been a loyal user of Open Office for the past several years.  The
> spreadsheet does a nice job of replacing the basics of Excel.
>
> Two things though that I really would like to see be improved or added for
> future releases:
>
> 1) In a large spreadsheet I block several cells and only want to print
> those cells.  Print Preview and Print wants to print the whole spreadsheet,
> which could be several pages.  But, maybe I only need a half page or about
> one page only.  Maybe there is a way of doing it, but try as I do I can't
> seem to get to print only what I've blocked or highlighted.
>
> 2) Excel has a very nice block and move feature.  You can block or
> highlight  a group of cells and just drag them to a different location and
> keep the formatting of the moved cells.  This is slick and you don't have
> to go thru a copy and paste procedure which is much more cumbersome.
>
> Keep up the good work!
>
> Jerry [?]
>
Hello Jerry,
   If I understand you correctly, the equivalent actions in Calc are:
1. Highlight the cells you want to print. Select the menu Format -> Print
Ranges -> Define. Selecting File -> Page Preview will then show only the
selected cells.
2. Highlight the cells you want to move. Left click and hold the mouse
button down inside the selected range (not at the edge of the range as in
Excel) and drag to the new location.

I hope that helps.
Francis

Re: Open Office 4.01

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 10/18/2013 08:11 PM, schrieb Jerry Slivka:

Hi,

I've been a loyal user of Open Office for the past several years.  The
spreadsheet does a nice job of replacing the basics of Excel.

Two things though that I really would like to see be improved or added
for future releases:

1) In a large spreadsheet I block several cells and only want to print
those cells.  Print Preview and Print wants to print the whole
spreadsheet, which could be several pages.  But, maybe I only need a
half page or about one page only.  Maybe there is a way of doing it, but
try as I do I can't seem to get to print only what I've blocked or
highlighted.


please have a look for the option "Selected cells" when opening the 
Print dialog via "File - Print". Then also the print preview is showing 
only the highlighted cells.



2) Excel has a very nice block and move feature.  You can block or
highlight  a group of cells and just drag them to a different location
and keep the formatting of the moved cells.  This is slick and you don't
have to go thru a copy and paste procedure which is much more cumbersome.


Selecting cells and move via mouse is working fine and the cell content 
as well the formatting is moved. I don't see a problem here. Maybe you 
need to give us more details about what exact steps you are doing?


Thanks

Marcus


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

Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 10/18/2013 02:51 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 10/18/13 2:44 PM, Samer Mansour wrote:

Andrea,

I've done as you said and attached to the bug ticket.
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491

If everyone can lazy agree we should commit it.


we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment
already but my preference would be

1. drop it completely or
2. make the Apache logo much smaller and move it down, it is to dominant
at the moment


A link is indeed not useful in this dialog. However, I would leave the 
graphic - with a smaller size.


Marcus




On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Andrea Pescettiwrote:


On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:


On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote:


The Splash screen needs some changes; please see:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=123491


we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand
alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our
typical user is lost on the first shot.



Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully
displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the
feather with "[The] Apache Software Foundation" text only.


  Also, the About screen says:

"This product was created by the OpenOffice community".
I think that should say:
"This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community".


I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice
community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache
OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but
nothing else, at least not to me.



Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, "OpenOffice" can
suffice in this context.

Regards,
   Andrea.


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

Open Office 4.01

[Jerry Slivka]

Hi,

I've been a loyal user of Open Office for the past several years.  The
spreadsheet does a nice job of replacing the basics of Excel.

Two things though that I really would like to see be improved or added for
future releases:

1) In a large spreadsheet I block several cells and only want to print
those cells.  Print Preview and Print wants to print the whole spreadsheet,
which could be several pages.  But, maybe I only need a half page or about
one page only.  Maybe there is a way of doing it, but try as I do I can't
seem to get to print only what I've blocked or highlighted.

2) Excel has a very nice block and move feature.  You can block or
highlight  a group of cells and just drag them to a different location and
keep the formatting of the moved cells.  This is slick and you don't have
to go thru a copy and paste procedure which is much more cumbersome.

Keep up the good work!

Jerry [?]

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[janI]

On 18 October 2013 16:52, Andre Fischer  wrote:

> On 18.10.2013 15:58, janI wrote:
>
>> On 18 October 2013 15:00, Andre Fischer  wrote:
>>
>>  On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote:
>>>
>>>  sd


 On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer  wrote:

   On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:

>   Hi.
>
>> due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have
>> made a
>> proposal for a central Makefile located in main.
>>
>>   Hi Jan,
>>
> it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build
> system.
>But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build
> system
> works.  Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal.
>
>   First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be
>
 discussed
 before implemented, hence the wiki page.

 Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system,
 its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system.

  Yes, that is how I understood it.  I just did not know how to call the
>>> build.pl replacement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make
 us
 one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is
 a
 simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have.


   Some remarks regarding the missing options:

> --from 
>  This is one of the more important options and one that I use
> frequently
> (also in the form --all:).
>  Note that if you are in  and call 'make --from '
> then
> all modules are built
>  a) which  depends on
>  b) but not those that  depends on
>  c) Both  and  are built.
>
>   I have changed the documentation.
>
 I use the --all: myself very often, and have changed the
 documentation, because it is of course supported.

 The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor
 detail
 that can be easily corrected (have /Makefile calling
 main/Makefile.

 I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments.

  I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so
>>> I
>>> will try to explain what I think they do.
>>>
>>> Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and
>>> E.
>>> where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D.
>>> A ' make all' would mean 'make E'.  The dependencies would then lead to
>>> building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order.
>>> If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be
>>> built.  A 'make --since C' would only build D and E.
>>>
>>> If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are built.
>>>   Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D.
>>> Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make
>>> --all:' does not).
>>> Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B')
>>> module
>>> A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or not.
>>>   Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build all
>>> modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly.  Thus the options
>>> '--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being
>>> built.
>>>
>>> The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple
>>> options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid
>>> use
>>> case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then in
>>> the
>>> simple example above.  Let's say that if we stand in instsetoo_native and
>>> call 'make --from svx sfx2'.  Note that svx depends on sfx2.  This would
>>> build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend (directly or indirectly) on
>>> svx
>>> OR sfx2.
>>>
>>>  got it, now I just have one problem, why would you not build the
>> dependent
>> modules, if they needed to be built, thats a scenario I dont understand.
>> With a central makefile, /makefile will not be called so we do not
>> waste cpu cycles.
>>
>> With the .done files, we know when a module was last built and all modules
>> that depend it should be rebuilt which the rule
>> .done : .done
>>
>> will ensure, so If we have A -> B -> C -> D
>>
>> I go in B, and call make, then when I go in D and make, B,C,D will be
>> made.
>>
>> If we have A -> B -> D   C -> D
>> and do the same then only D will be made.
>>
>> So --from is not really saving anything ?
>>
>
> a) In your example you first go into B then, in a second step, into D.
>  The '--from' option lets you do the same (well, not really the same, but
> see below) just from D.
>
> b) You go first to B and call make.  This makes A, if necessary, then B.
>  The making of A is exactly the thing that you want to prevent with the
> '--from' option.  Go into D and call 'make --from B'.  A is not built.
>

Actually I go to main and say "make D", that will cause B bu

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[Andre Fischer]

On 18.10.2013 15:58, janI wrote:

On 18 October 2013 15:00, Andre Fischer  wrote:


On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote:


sd


On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer  wrote:

  On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:

  Hi.

due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have
made a
proposal for a central Makefile located in main.

  Hi Jan,

it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system.
   But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build
system
works.  Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal.

  First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be

discussed
before implemented, hence the wiki page.

Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system,
its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system.


Yes, that is how I understood it.  I just did not know how to call the
build.pl replacement.




I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us
one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a
simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have.


  Some remarks regarding the missing options:

--from 
 This is one of the more important options and one that I use
frequently
(also in the form --all:).
 Note that if you are in  and call 'make --from '
then
all modules are built
 a) which  depends on
 b) but not those that  depends on
 c) Both  and  are built.

  I have changed the documentation.

I use the --all: myself very often, and have changed the
documentation, because it is of course supported.

The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail
that can be easily corrected (have /Makefile calling
main/Makefile.

I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments.


I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I
will try to explain what I think they do.

Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and E.
where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D.
A ' make all' would mean 'make E'.  The dependencies would then lead to
building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order.
If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be
built.  A 'make --since C' would only build D and E.

If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are built.
  Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D.
Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make
--all:' does not).
Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B') module
A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or not.
  Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build all
modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly.  Thus the options
'--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built.

The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple
options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid use
case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then in the
simple example above.  Let's say that if we stand in instsetoo_native and
call 'make --from svx sfx2'.  Note that svx depends on sfx2.  This would
build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend (directly or indirectly) on svx
OR sfx2.


got it, now I just have one problem, why would you not build the dependent
modules, if they needed to be built, thats a scenario I dont understand.
With a central makefile, /makefile will not be called so we do not
waste cpu cycles.

With the .done files, we know when a module was last built and all modules
that depend it should be rebuilt which the rule
.done : .done

will ensure, so If we have A -> B -> C -> D

I go in B, and call make, then when I go in D and make, B,C,D will be made.

If we have A -> B -> D   C -> D
and do the same then only D will be made.

So --from is not really saving anything ?


a) In your example you first go into B then, in a second step, into D.  
The '--from' option lets you do the same (well, not really the same, but 
see below) just from D.


b) You go first to B and call make.  This makes A, if necessary, then 
B.  The making of A is exactly the thing that you want to prevent with 
the '--from' option.  Go into D and call 'make --from B'.  A is not built.


c) After the discussion with you I am not sure if we still need --from 
because the two reasons I know for its existence my not be relevant with 
the new approach.


c1) With the '--from' option you can tweak the dependency rules at 
runtime (a bit).  This allows you to exclude projects from being built 
when you know that that is not necessary.  But from experience I know 
that can lead to very subtle errors.  Letting the system determine what 
to built is usually more reliable.


c2) With build.pl a 'build --all' still builds every module on which the 
one you are standing in depends on.  When those modules have been built 
previously, then no compila

RE: Link to Windows SDK 4.0.1 is broken

[Polk, Henry]

Yes. The install package for Office is ok, it's just SDK package was giving me 
an error.
This is exact error from web server:

The requested URL 
/dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.1/binaries/SDK/Apache_OpenOffice-SDK_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe
 was not found on this server. 

I have tried download this from two different locations and got same result.

Henry Polk | CVS|Caremark Corp | Advisor Technical, Dispensing Automation Team 
| cell 224-436-1432 | office 847-484-9306 | 2100 E.Lake Cook Rd, Buffalo Grove, 
IL, 60089 | hp...@caremark.com
 


-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:15 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Polk, Henry
Subject: Re: Link to Windows SDK 4.0.1 is broken

Forwarding to Henry, since I don't think he is subscribed to the mailing list.

-Rob

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
> Henry,
>   Do you mean the link:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.1/binar
> ies/SDK/Apache_OpenOffice-SDK_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe
> ?
>   From the page: http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html  ?
>   I just tried it and downloaded it successfully.
>

But it looks like the link from this page is incorrect:

http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html

-Rob


> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
>
> 2013/10/18 Polk, Henry 
>
>> Hi. Just want to let you know when I click on download link to 
>> Windows SDK 4.0.1, web servers reports there is no such file.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Henry Polk | CVS|Caremark Corp | Advisor Technical, Dispensing 
>> Automation Team | cell 224-436-1432 | office 847-484-9306 | 2100 
>> E.Lake Cook Rd, Buffalo Grove, IL, 60089 | hp...@caremark.com 
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>

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

Re: Link to Windows SDK 4.0.1 is broken

[Rob Weir]

Forwarding to Henry, since I don't think he is subscribed to the mailing list.

-Rob

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
> Henry,
>   Do you mean the link:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.1/binaries/SDK/Apache_OpenOffice-SDK_4.0.1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe
> ?
>   From the page: http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html  ?
>   I just tried it and downloaded it successfully.
>

But it looks like the link from this page is incorrect:

http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html

-Rob


> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
>
> 2013/10/18 Polk, Henry 
>
>> Hi. Just want to let you know when I click on download link to Windows
>> SDK 4.0.1, web servers reports there is no such file.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Henry Polk | CVS|Caremark Corp | Advisor Technical, Dispensing
>> Automation Team | cell 224-436-1432 | office 847-484-9306 | 2100 E.Lake
>> Cook Rd, Buffalo Grove, IL, 60089 | hp...@caremark.com
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>

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

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[janI]

On 18 October 2013 15:00, Andre Fischer  wrote:

> On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote:
>
>> sd
>>
>>
>> On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer  wrote:
>>
>>  On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi.

 due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have
 made a
 proposal for a central Makefile located in main.

  Hi Jan,
>>>
>>> it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system.
>>>   But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build
>>> system
>>> works.  Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal.
>>>
>>>  First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be
>> discussed
>> before implemented, hence the wiki page.
>>
>> Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system,
>> its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system.
>>
>
> Yes, that is how I understood it.  I just did not know how to call the
> build.pl replacement.
>
>
>
>> I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us
>> one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a
>> simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have.
>>
>>
>>  Some remarks regarding the missing options:
>>>
>>> --from 
>>> This is one of the more important options and one that I use
>>> frequently
>>> (also in the form --all:).
>>> Note that if you are in  and call 'make --from '
>>> then
>>> all modules are built
>>> a) which  depends on
>>> b) but not those that  depends on
>>> c) Both  and  are built.
>>>
>>>  I have changed the documentation.
>>
>> I use the --all: myself very often, and have changed the
>> documentation, because it is of course supported.
>>
>> The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail
>> that can be easily corrected (have /Makefile calling
>> main/Makefile.
>>
>> I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments.
>>
>
> I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I
> will try to explain what I think they do.
>
> Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and E.
> where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D.
> A ' make all' would mean 'make E'.  The dependencies would then lead to
> building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order.
> If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be
> built.  A 'make --since C' would only build D and E.
>
> If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are built.
>  Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D.
> Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make
> --all:' does not).
> Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B') module
> A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or not.
>  Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build all
> modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly.  Thus the options
> '--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built.
>
> The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple
> options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid use
> case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then in the
> simple example above.  Let's say that if we stand in instsetoo_native and
> call 'make --from svx sfx2'.  Note that svx depends on sfx2.  This would
> build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend (directly or indirectly) on svx
> OR sfx2.
>

got it, now I just have one problem, why would you not build the dependent
modules, if they needed to be built, thats a scenario I dont understand.
With a central makefile, /makefile will not be called so we do not
waste cpu cycles.

With the .done files, we know when a module was last built and all modules
that depend it should be rebuilt which the rule
.done : .done

will ensure, so If we have A -> B -> C -> D

I go in B, and call make, then when I go in D and make, B,C,D will be made.

If we have A -> B -> D   C -> D
and do the same then only D will be made.

So --from is not really saving anything ?


>
> While this is easy to do with eg Perl I am not sure how to handle this
> with just a Makefile.  The straightforward approach with handling
> .done files does not work.  And that is one of the reasons why I
> don't think that (GNU) makefiles are a good solution for any problem.  Most
> of us are used to program object oriented/imperative.  Makefiles require a
> declarative approach. Maybe the use of Perl is not such a bad idea.  Maybe
> it would be better to reimplement build.pl with a lot fewer options and
> with better readable code.
>

I agree that makefiles are nowhere near a good solution to many of these
problems, but its like windows, I dont like it, but everybody uses it.

We could easily write a new build.pl, that also took care of the local
makefiles, but our build system would not be in the mainstream, and e.g.
the distros would not 

Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1

[Guenter Marxen]

Am 18.10.2013 14:51, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment
already but my preference would be

1. drop it completely or


plus: ... members of the OpenOffice community.

and perhaps (compare with "Help, Info"):

"Copyright ... The A... S... F..."

--
Grüße

Günter Marxen


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

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[Andre Fischer]

On 18.10.2013 14:02, janI wrote:

sd


On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer  wrote:


On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:


Hi.

due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a
proposal for a central Makefile located in main.


Hi Jan,

it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system.
  But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system
works.  Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal.


First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed
before implemented, hence the wiki page.

Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system,
its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system.


Yes, that is how I understood it.  I just did not know how to call the 
build.pl replacement.




I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us
one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a
simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have.



Some remarks regarding the missing options:

--from 
This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently
(also in the form --all:).
Note that if you are in  and call 'make --from ' then
all modules are built
a) which  depends on
b) but not those that  depends on
c) Both  and  are built.


I have changed the documentation.

I use the --all: myself very often, and have changed the
documentation, because it is of course supported.

The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail
that can be easily corrected (have /Makefile calling main/Makefile.

I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments.


I am not sure that we understand --from and --since in the same way so I 
will try to explain what I think they do.


Let's imagine that we have a simple project with modules A, B, C, D and 
E. where B depends on A, C on B, D on C, and E on D.
A ' make all' would mean 'make E'.  The dependencies would then lead to 
building modules A, B, C, D, E in this order.
If I am in E and call 'make --from C' then only C, D, and E should be 
built.  A 'make --since C' would only build D and E.


If I am in D and call 'make --from B' then modules B, C, and D are 
built.  Call 'make --since B' to build only C and D.
Note that 'make --from' accepts more than one module name (while 'make 
--all:' does not).
Note also that in the above case (stand in D, call 'make --from B') 
module A is not built, regardless of whether there are changes in A or 
not.  Whereas a simple call to make (still standing in D) would build 
all modules that D depends on, directly or indirectly.  Thus the options 
'--from' and '--since' exist to actively exclude modules from being built.


The whole thing becomes a little bit more complicated with multiple 
options to '--from' (I never use '--since' and also don't know a valid 
use case so I will ignore it for now) and more complex dependencies then 
in the simple example above.  Let's say that if we stand in 
instsetoo_native and call 'make --from svx sfx2'.  Note that svx depends 
on sfx2.  This would build svx, sfx2 and all modules that depend 
(directly or indirectly) on svx OR sfx2.


While this is easy to do with eg Perl I am not sure how to handle this 
with just a Makefile.  The straightforward approach with handling 
.done files does not work.  And that is one of the reasons why I 
don't think that (GNU) makefiles are a good solution for any problem.  
Most of us are used to program object oriented/imperative.  Makefiles 
require a declarative approach. Maybe the use of Perl is not such a bad 
idea.  Maybe it would be better to reimplement build.pl with a lot fewer 
options and with better readable code.


-Andre





--prepare
Also one option that is important for our every day work.  Use case:
You make changes in  and are not sure if these changes are
compatible/incompatible.  To be on the safe side you discard the output of
all depending modules.  To save time you keep the output of all other
modules.

Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' to
prepare a build after making changes in svx.


Documentation changed, funny thing is that svx does not clear correctly on
my ubuntu build.



--since 
A variant of '--from'.  The only difference is that  itself is
not built.

If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then it
is not too difficult to support --from/--since.  I made some experiments in
this direction but was to lazy to finish them.


My approach is very similar, but I failed to see how --since is supported.
And question is if its real important.



--job
--pre_job
--post_job
   These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules.


I have added them, they are by the way a good example why we need a
discussion I have never used them.

However maybe the real discussion is "do we want to replace build and h

Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/18/13 2:44 PM, Samer Mansour wrote:
> Andrea,
> 
> I've done as you said and attached to the bug ticket.
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491
> 
> If everyone can lazy agree we should commit it.

we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment
already but my preference would be

1. drop it completely or
2. make the Apache logo much smaller and move it down, it is to dominant
at the moment

Juergen

> 
> Samer Mansour
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
>> On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
 The Splash screen needs some changes; please see:
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=123491

>>> we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand
>>> alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our
>>> typical user is lost on the first shot.
>>>
>>
>> Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully
>> displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the
>> feather with "[The] Apache Software Foundation" text only.
>>
>>
>>  Also, the About screen says:
 "This product was created by the OpenOffice community".
 I think that should say:
 "This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community".

>>> I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice
>>> community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache
>>> OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but
>>> nothing else, at least not to me.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, "OpenOffice" can
>> suffice in this context.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>>
>> --**--**-
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
> 


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

Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1

[Samer Mansour]

Andrea,

I've done as you said and attached to the bug ticket.
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491

If everyone can lazy agree we should commit it.

Samer Mansour


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> The Splash screen needs some changes; please see:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=123491
>>>
>> we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand
>> alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our
>> typical user is lost on the first shot.
>>
>
> Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully
> displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the
> feather with "[The] Apache Software Foundation" text only.
>
>
>  Also, the About screen says:
>>> "This product was created by the OpenOffice community".
>>> I think that should say:
>>> "This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community".
>>>
>> I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice
>> community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache
>> OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but
>> nothing else, at least not to me.
>>
>
> Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, "OpenOffice" can
> suffice in this context.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[janI]

sd


On 18 October 2013 13:36, Andre Fischer  wrote:

> On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a
>> proposal for a central Makefile located in main.
>>
> Hi Jan,
>
> it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build system.
>  But I think that we need more details about how the proposed build system
> works.  Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal.
>

First of all, I agree with juergens remarks that this should be discussed
before implemented, hence the wiki page.

Secondly this has nothing directly to do with the proposed build system,
its a simple replacement of build.pl in the current system.

I know that build.pl works, but having a Makefile in main, would make us
one step closer on being compatible with the distros. To me this job is a
simple cleanup, not something we deadly need, but nice to have.


>
> Some remarks regarding the missing options:
>
> --from 
>This is one of the more important options and one that I use frequently
> (also in the form --all:).
>Note that if you are in  and call 'make --from ' then
> all modules are built
>a) which  depends on
>b) but not those that  depends on
>c) Both  and  are built.
>

I have changed the documentation.

I use the --all: myself very often, and have changed the
documentation, because it is of course supported.

The difference is that you do the call in main, but that is a minor detail
that can be easily corrected (have /Makefile calling main/Makefile.

I have also changed documentation on --html due to juergens comments.


> --prepare
>Also one option that is important for our every day work.  Use case:
> You make changes in  and are not sure if these changes are
> compatible/incompatible.  To be on the safe side you discard the output of
> all depending modules.  To save time you keep the output of all other
> modules.
>
>Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' to
> prepare a build after making changes in svx.
>

Documentation changed, funny thing is that svx does not clear correctly on
my ubuntu build.


>
> --since 
>A variant of '--from'.  The only difference is that  itself is
> not built.
>
>If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then it
> is not too difficult to support --from/--since.  I made some experiments in
> this direction but was to lazy to finish them.
>

My approach is very similar, but I failed to see how --since is supported.
And question is if its real important.


>
> --job
> --pre_job
> --post_job
>   These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules.
>

I have added them, they are by the way a good example why we need a
discussion I have never used them.

However maybe the real discussion is "do we want to replace build and have
a main/Makefile instead?"



>
> - I have not used the rest of the unsupported options and would not miss
> them.  Others may have other sets of options that are important to them.
>
>
> Some general remarks:
>
> - Why keep one makefile per module?  Why not put all the inter-module
> dependencies into one file (like my script does)?
>

Ups, I did not explain that correctly, I propose 1 Makefile "main/Makefile"
with all inter-module and 1 Makefile "/Makefile" that today just
will call the old makefiles as described in prj/build.lst

- Why not use the oportunity to move (a part of) the build environment out
> of the way to, say, build/ ?
>
You have guessed my next step.


>
> - How are dependencies between modules handled (just the manual
> dependencies from prj/build.lst or also the file dependencies introduced by
> gmake).
>

See doc. on --from. Its done with .done files


> - How is the output of the individual calls to dmake or GNU make
> handled/made accessible.  Ie. if there is a build error, how can I look up
> the corresponding build output?
>

see doc. script make_log

>
> - Are the gmake makefiles included (run in the same process) or is GNU
> make started for them it its own process?
>

For a start they would be called (own process), but its something where I
have no strong opinions.

Please (just to be sure), this proposal has nothing to do with the students
work, its simply because I saw a positive discussion on removing build.pl,
and spent a couple of hours looking at it. If there is a preference not to
remove build.pl I will simply forget it.

rgds
jan I.




>
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
>
>
>> It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre.
>>
>> As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be
>> considered in a makefile.
>>
>> My suggestion is on
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Build_System_Analysis:**
>> build.pl_versus_makefile
>>
>> Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a
>> lot, and some of them might be in use.
>>
>>

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[Andre Fischer]

On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:

Hi.

due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a
proposal for a central Makefile located in main.


One thing that I forgot earlier:

Can you state the problems with build.pl that you are addressing and how 
the new approach does better?


-Andre



It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre.

As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be
considered in a makefile.

My suggestion is on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile

Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a
lot, and some of them might be in use.

thanks in advance for your comments.




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

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[Andre Fischer]

On 18.10.2013 11:32, janI wrote:

Hi.

due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a
proposal for a central Makefile located in main.

Hi Jan,

it is great that you are going to improve this part of the build 
system.  But I think that we need more details about how the proposed 
build system works.  Without them I can not really evaluate the proposal.


Some remarks regarding the missing options:

--from 
   This is one of the more important options and one that I use 
frequently (also in the form --all:).
   Note that if you are in  and call 'make --from ' 
then all modules are built

   a) which  depends on
   b) but not those that  depends on
   c) Both  and  are built.

--prepare
   Also one option that is important for our every day work.  Use case: 
You make changes in  and are not sure if these changes are 
compatible/incompatible.  To be on the safe side you discard the output 
of all depending modules.  To save time you keep the output of all other 
modules.


   Often used together with '--from' like 'make --prepare --from svx' 
to prepare a build after making changes in svx.


--since 
   A variant of '--from'.  The only difference is that  itself 
is not built.


   If your proposed approach is similar to what my script produces then 
it is not too difficult to support --from/--since.  I made some 
experiments in this direction but was to lazy to finish them.


--job
--pre_job
--post_job
  These are sometimes handy to run a non-standard command for all modules.

- I have not used the rest of the unsupported options and would not miss 
them.  Others may have other sets of options that are important to them.



Some general remarks:

- Why keep one makefile per module?  Why not put all the inter-module 
dependencies into one file (like my script does)?
- Why not use the oportunity to move (a part of) the build environment 
out of the way to, say, build/ ?


- How are dependencies between modules handled (just the manual 
dependencies from prj/build.lst or also the file dependencies introduced 
by gmake).
- How is the output of the individual calls to dmake or GNU make 
handled/made accessible.  Ie. if there is a build error, how can I look 
up the corresponding build output?


- Are the gmake makefiles included (run in the same process) or is GNU 
make started for them it its own process?



Regards,
Andre



It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre.

As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be
considered in a makefile.

My suggestion is on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile

Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a
lot, and some of them might be in use.

thanks in advance for your comments.




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

Re: [proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/18/13 11:32 AM, janI wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a
> proposal for a central Makefile located in main.
> 
> It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre.
> 
> As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be
> considered in a makefile.
> 
> My suggestion is on
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile
> 
> Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a
> lot, and some of them might be in use.
> 
> thanks in advance for your comments.

first of all thanks for your interest to move things forward here. But
keep in mind that it is a very important area and we have to double
check everything before we drop an option ...

For example build --from is an often used option and as long as we have
no "real"dependencies that work properly we need probably something like
this. The html switches should have at least a replacement, we need
something that can be used to for the build bots for example. We have at
least to show an alternative approach to use log files or whatever.


Juergen


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

[proposal] replace build.pl with a central Makefile.

[janI]

Hi.

due to the discussion in thread "Mentor a new build system", I have made a
proposal for a central Makefile located in main.

It has been roughly tested it, thanks to a clever utility from andre.

As discussed build.pl contains a lot of options, which need to be
considered in a makefile.

My suggestion is on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis:build.pl_versus_makefile

Please feel free to edit/comment on the page. I have reduced to options a
lot, and some of them might be in use.

thanks in advance for your comments.

Re: Re[2]: [CWiki] new default access rights active

[Steve Yin]

Hi Andrea,

I was hoping that if you could count me in. Thanks.

Full name: Steve Yin


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Yakov Reztsov  wrote:

>
> >
> >Whitelisted:
> >
> >~liushenf Shenfeng Liu
> >
> >~yak (Yakov [Reztsov]) - note it's "yak" not "yakov"
> >
> >Regards,
> >   Andrea.
> >
> Thanks!
> --
>
> Yakov Reztsov
>



-- 
Best Regards,

Steve Yin

Re: The Number of Active Forum Administrators

[imacat]

On 2013/10/18 06:21, Ricardo Berlasso said:
> 2013/10/16 Ricardo Berlasso 
>> 2013/10/16 imacat 
>>> On 2013/10/16 08:10, Ricardo Berlasso said:
 2013/10/15 imacat 
> Besides, I would like to call for help from another PMC member as
> the administrator of all the 10 language forum, as a back up of me (and
> so will I be the back up of you).  You don't need to understand all the
> 10 languages. :p  You don't need to get involved into the actual forum
> operation.  But it would be nice to have experience in forum operation
> and communication (i.e. was a moderator somewhere for months).
>

 If knowing the forum ACP and moderator panel is enough (I know nothing
 about databases, servers and all those scaring things that run behind
>>> the
 forum software), you can count on me.
>>>
>>> That would be great! ^_^  Have you registered your account on all
>>> the 10 forums?
>>>
>>
>> Just on three of them. Other than the ES forum, I'm registered on EN
>> forums (user id: RGB) and on IT forums (user id: RGB-it). On the next
>> couple of days I'll register on all the others.
>>
> 
> Ok, I just registered on all the other forums, always with RGB as user id.

OK.  Done.  I have added you to both of the Administrators and
Global moderators groups of all the 10 forum.  You may check.

Welcome. ^_*'

> 
> Regards,
> Ricardo
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ricardo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>

 Regards,
 Ricardo



>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' 
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> imacat ^_*' 
>>> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>>>
>>> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
>>> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
>>> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
>>> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
>>> EducOO/OOo4Kids  Taiwan
>>> http://www.educoo.tw/
>>> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>>>
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 18/10/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 10/17/13 8:53 PM, sebb wrote:

The Splash screen needs some changes; please see:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123491

we can drop the feather in the start center completely or let it stand
alone but I don't like the idea to link back to apache.org where our
typical user is lost on the first shot.


Note that this is not the Start center but the splash screen, hopefully 
displayed for a very short time. I would remove the URL, and put the 
feather with "[The] Apache Software Foundation" text only.



Also, the About screen says:
"This product was created by the OpenOffice community".
I think that should say:
"This product was created by the Apache OpenOffice community".

I don't think so and the reason is quite simple. The OpenOffice
community and the open office project exists much longer than the Apache
OpenOffice project. The new name is mainly to reflect our new home but
nothing else, at least not to me.


Indeed. We already have prominent attribution to Apache, "OpenOffice" 
can suffice in this context.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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