Time to start 4.1 planning?
Hi, all, It was one month since 4.0.1 release. And I noticed some some great works are going to be delivered soon. e.g. the IA2 framework from Steve, the Mac 64-bit support from Herbert, and Windows Patch mechanism from Andre. So I'm thinking, is it a good time to start the 4.1 plan now? We should deliver those great value to our users through a formal release ASAP! And IMO, even only the 3 items above can be enough for a release to be called 4.1. We also want to do OOXML improvement by integrating OSBA patches, and enhance user experience like in-place Input Field, and many other things... While, I think we can keep the continuous improvement across releases. From the record breaking download number since 4.0 and 4.0.1, I feel that keeping regular release is very important to response to our users, attract more new comers, and bring this product to success. So I suggest we start the 4.1 plan now, and set a target date. Since 4.0 was in July, 4.0.1 was in Oct, I feel some time in 1Q will be a good time for 4.1. I suggest to update the 4.1 planning wiki[1] and: (1) Set the target date. (2) Clean up the planning list, starting from leaving only the active items, and moving the rest to project backlog[2]. Any suggestion/comments? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Planning [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog - Shenfeng (Simon)
Re: Problem with automatized profile import OO4
Hi, On 07.11.2013 15:48, Riccardo Arzenton wrote: And what if i want to run this import in a silent mode to the user? Something like... import the profile that you find and if you don't find anything just do nothing. ?? Somehow back to your original question. As far as I know I the user profile migration is only triggered in interactive mode from the FirstStartWizard. May be you should have a closer to the code - e.g. main/desktop/source/migration/* - in order to check, if the user profile migration can be performed in silent mode. Best regards, Oliver. Hi, And in your opinion there is no way to re-run this import in a second time? It is recorded that the FirstStartWizard has been perform. This is stored in a corresponding setting value in the user profile. I am not sure, if the run of the user profile migration (as a sub action of the FirstStartWizard) is also recorded. Let me check, the code and the user profile for the corresponding setting - stay tuned. For the FirstStartWizard there is option FirstStartWizardCompleted - have a look into file registrymodifications.xcu found in the user profile. Set its value to 'false' and on the next start of OpenOffice the FirstStartWizard will show up again. When the user profile migration has been executed option MigrationCompleted records it - also found in the above mentioned user profile file. Thus, you need to set it to 'false' to enable the user to run the migration during the FirstStartWizard. Best regards, Oliver. Best regards, Oliver. -- Riccardo Arzenton YACME S.r.l. (http://www.yacme.com) Via Majani 2 - 40122 Bologna Tel: +39 051 19985458 - Messaggio originale - Da: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com A: dev@openoffice.apache.org Inviato: Lunedì, 4 novembre 2013 10:11:19 Oggetto: Re: Problem with automatized profile import OO4 Hi, On 28.10.2013 10:30, Riccardo Arzenton wrote: Hi to all, how can i force OO4 to try to restore the previous user profile after the installation runned by a user script? I want to 1. Install OO4 2. Install some extensions that affect the user profile (the user doesn't have to configure anything) 3. If there is an old OO34 user profile, import that one. The point 1 and 2 are ok. How can I resolve the number 3? There is an OO4 command line that i can launch saying to OO4 import the previous profile without asking anything, and if you don't find it, simply do nothing? Here is what I know about the migration of a user profile from a previous major version: - The migration is part of the 'FirstStartWizard' which runs on the first start of an OpenOffice instance. - The migration code is part of the module 'desktop' which is integrated into the OpenOffice application. Thus, no standalone code available as far as I know. - I did not know any command line option for OpenOffice application to run only this function. Best regards, Oliver. Thanks to all! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: the Seamonkey has left the building
On 10.11.2013 17:59, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 08/11/2013 Herbert Duerr wrote: As discussed in the thread AOO Security Features without Mozilla I removed the dependency on the ancient Seamonkey-1.1 binaries and use the NSS libraries (Network Security Services) instead. This major rework has been integrated into trunk now. Thank you! This makes two pending blog posts from you, right? Just joking... but it would be nice that the innovation coming in OpenOffice gets appropriate coverage. It certainly was important work. Like the work of a rodent control specialist who solves the problem of rats gnawing people's flesh of their bones while they sleep. Advertising that there even was the need for such a solution is not a good idea IMHO. The sooner that abomination is forgotten the better... I respect the former colleagues that introduced it very much but I never liked that particular approach which was probably a result of a steamroller is really good for cracking nuts and the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. By the way, I incorporated your notes from that thread into https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Notes Thanks! If you are working on trunk you'll notice that the moz module and the configure switch named --disable-mozilla is gone. Yes, but the build is now broken on the Fedora 19 machine that I use for building trunk from time to time. Note that this does not necessarily depend on your changes, but maybe some conflict is triggered. I did a completely clean build. The nss module is built cleanly (warnings aside). Then I see warnings/errors like: Making:idlc ... /lib64/libcrypt.so.1: undefined reference to `NSSLOWHASH_End@NSSRAWHASH_3.12.3' Darn. Major reworks always require some polishing. Maybe adapting the change [1] the Mozilla guys did to make it work on Fedora helps us too? [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=589009action=diff Please try this patch and rebuild from nss: --- main/nss/makefile.mk +++ main/nss/makefile.mk @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ BUILD_DIR=mozilla$/security$/nss BUILD_ACTION= $(GNUMAKE) nss_build_all #See #i105566# moz#513024# .IF $(OS)==LINUX -BUILD_ACTION+=FREEBL_NO_DEPEND=1 +BUILD_ACTION+=FREEBL_NO_DEPEND=1 FREEBL_LOWHASH=1 PATCH_FILES+=nss_linux.patch .ENDIF Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Build braker in rejuvenate01 cppu
Hi all I run in a build breaker in the rejuvenate01 branche dmake: Error: -- `uno_purpenvhelpers5abi.map' not found, and can't be made Has someone a idea what happend here, and what's wrong? Greetings Raphael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Accessibility] IA2 Integration proposal
Hi all, Bug 123619 (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123619) was fixed. I think there is no critical bug in the current version. So I think I can start the integration work soon. For any concern about the branch ia2, It would be great if you could reply the mail with your comments. Thanks. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Steve Yin steve.yin@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jean, Could you tell us more detail about your configuration? Such as your operating system, the version number of the IA2 branch build? Thanks. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:23 PM, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe mengualjean...@free.fr wrote: Hi, I thought it was temporary or due to my conf, but what are conditions to make the IA2 binary work? I've tested it for 2-3 binaries and it doesn't work anymore on my computer. My user has aanin permissions. But when I open OOo, I have as if they wouldn't be IA2, it stays really inaccessible. Some ideas? Regards, Le 08/11/2013 19:14, Andrew Rist a écrit : On 11/7/2013 11:42 PM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi all, The main development work for IA2 feature is finished on the branch ia2. That's great news! Although there are some bugs in the current revision, I propose to merge the branch to the trunk for involving more volunteers. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Jean-Philippe MENGUAL accelibreinfo, votre partenaire en informatique adaptée aux déficients visuels Mail: te...@accelibreinfo.eu Site Web: http://www.accelibreinfo.eu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Best Regards, Steve Yin -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Re: ia2 Buildbot needs attention
Based on Herbert suggestion, I will synchronize the branch with the latest trunk. And the build issue will go away. :) On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Steve Yin steve.yin@gmail.com wrote: It shows configure: error: Building SeaMonkey is supported with Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2005 only. Was the build bot env changed? On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:49 AM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.eduwrote: Steve, Herbert We've got another hang-up on the ia2 branch--3 days with no build of r1539225. Looks like this might be related to removal of SeaMonkey http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/the-Seamonkey-has-left-the-building-tt4655461.html . From the ia2 297 build error logs: Stuart -- View this message in context: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/ia2-Buildbot-needs-attention-tp4655304p4655528.html Sent from the Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Best Regards, Steve Yin -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Re: [Accessibility] IA2 Integration proposal
Hi Rob, For the defects introduced by IA2 feature, I think the possible areas that will be impacted are UI, document editing area, graphic objects. And no visible changes will be made to dialogs. Another possible area will be affected is stability. But the most issues will show up only when the IA2 feature is activated. Thanks. On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Steve Yin steve.yin@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, The main development work for IA2 feature is finished on the branch ia2. Although there are some bugs in the current revision, I propose to merge the branch to the trunk for involving more volunteers. Hi Steve, This is excellent news. It sounds like you've made great progress in this big task. I'll start on a blog post to describe the work, based on your information. We can use the blog post to let users know that this capability is coming in AOO 4.1 and maybe to call for more volunteers to help test. A question for you: Is there a possibility of these changes introducing new defects in other areas of the product? If so it would be good to get your opinion on what areas we should re-test to find any defects earlier. For example, I assume parsing of documents is not effect by these changes. But should we look for visible changes to dialogs? If there are new bugs, what is your best guess for where they would show up? Regards, -Rob -- Best Regards, Steve Yin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Re: the Seamonkey has left the building
A followup to my earlier mail: Please try this patch and rebuild from nss: --- main/nss/makefile.mk +++ main/nss/makefile.mk @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ BUILD_DIR=mozilla$/security$/nss BUILD_ACTION= $(GNUMAKE) nss_build_all #See #i105566# moz#513024# .IF $(OS)==LINUX -BUILD_ACTION+=FREEBL_NO_DEPEND=1 +BUILD_ACTION+=FREEBL_NO_DEPEND=1 FREEBL_LOWHASH=1 PATCH_FILES+=nss_linux.patch .ENDIF On a virtual test system the problem could be reproduced and the patch I suggested works. I already committed it as r1540693 so trunk should build now also on such systems. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Failure with system NSS
Hi Pedro, On 09.11.2013 01:58, Pedro Giffuni wrote: I tried the new --with-system-nss configure option but it failed in the libxmlsec module: checking for libxslt libraries = 1.0.20... no checking for openssl libraries = 0.9.6... no checking for nspr libraries = 4.0... no checking for nss libraries = 3.2... no checking for gnutls libraries = 0.8.1... no checking for mscrypto libraries... none checking for crypto library... configure: error: At least one crypto library should exist for xmlsec1 yes checking whether byte ordering is bigendian... dmake: Error code 1, while making './unxfbsdx.pro/misc/build/so_configured_so_xmlsec1' libxmlsec needs the nss development headers and libs. Are they available too? We could use new checks for configure for that scenario... [..] But it appears that nspr is not found either: Maybe the nspr development headers and libs are needed too for building, depending on how the system nss was provided. While here, I suspect that if libxmlsec could find openssl, it would seriously help progress in the direction of not depending on nss. That may be an interesting topic after AOO 4.1. Finally, both openssl and libxmlsec could get an update. libxmlsec is probably not easy to update, but for openssl I uploaded a newer version to apache-extras. Absolutely. Security critical libraries need to stay up to date. JIC someone is looking for a good excuse to contribute ;). Just contribute, no excuses needed ;-) Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Accessibility] IA2 Integration proposal
Jean-Phillipe, Removal of earlier revisions of the ia2 branch may have corrupted the MSAA libraries. Have you unregistered UAccCOM.dll with a regsvr32.exe /U command, and have you tried re-registering the oleacc.dll and oleaut32.dll? Additional notes in issue aoo#123640 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123640 . Stuart -- View this message in context: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/Accessibility-IA2-Integration-proposal-tp4655454p460.html Sent from the Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Failure with system NSS
Following up to myself: libxmlsec needs the nss development headers and libs. Are they available too? I just committed r1540735 to enable pkgconfig when system-nss is active. This should solve the config-problem on most systems. We could use new checks for configure for that scenario... Autoconf experts are invited to implement a nss=3.2 and nspr=4.0 in our configure.in template. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Proposal] Update 'Get It Here' Banner
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Samer Mansour samer...@gmail.com wrote: Hey everyone, Just realized the 'get it here' image is out dated. So I whipped together a new banner with a design I've been using with our social media pages. This is the current banner: http://openoffice.apache.org/images/get-it-here/en.png (from http://openoffice.apache.org/get-it-here.html) This is what I'm proposing to replace: http://dynomie.com/ext/getithere2.png This is nice. Thanks. -Rob I would replace the current one with the same dimensions so that it updates nicely on other sites with the existing logo code (if they pointed to our hosted image). Lazy consensus as usual, 72 hours. Samer Mansour - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Time to start 4.1 planning?
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, all, It was one month since 4.0.1 release. And I noticed some some great works are going to be delivered soon. e.g. the IA2 framework from Steve, the Mac 64-bit support from Herbert, and Windows Patch mechanism from Andre. So I'm thinking, is it a good time to start the 4.1 plan now? We should deliver those great value to our users through a formal release ASAP! And IMO, even only the 3 items above can be enough for a release to be called 4.1. We also want to do OOXML improvement by integrating OSBA patches, and enhance user experience like in-place Input Field, and many other things... While, I think we can keep the continuous improvement across releases. From the record breaking download number since 4.0 and 4.0.1, I feel that keeping regular release is very important to response to our users, attract more new comers, and bring this product to success. So I suggest we start the 4.1 plan now, and set a target date. Since 4.0 was in July, 4.0.1 was in Oct, I feel some time in 1Q will be a good time for 4.1. Hi Simon, Something to think about: After 4.0.0 we discussed having a public beta with out next major release. If we think this is worth doing, then we should plan on two dates: 1) A public beta data, and 2) a final release date. For the beta to be useful I think we would want it to last 3-4 weeks, enough time to process any new bug reports, identify any critical regressions, and fix them. Regards, -Rob I suggest to update the 4.1 planning wiki[1] and: (1) Set the target date. (2) Clean up the planning list, starting from leaving only the active items, and moving the rest to project backlog[2]. Any suggestion/comments? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Planning [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog - Shenfeng (Simon) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Time to start 4.1 planning?
On 11/11/13 3:59 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, all, It was one month since 4.0.1 release. And I noticed some some great works are going to be delivered soon. e.g. the IA2 framework from Steve, the Mac 64-bit support from Herbert, and Windows Patch mechanism from Andre. So I'm thinking, is it a good time to start the 4.1 plan now? We should deliver those great value to our users through a formal release ASAP! And IMO, even only the 3 items above can be enough for a release to be called 4.1. We also want to do OOXML improvement by integrating OSBA patches, and enhance user experience like in-place Input Field, and many other things... While, I think we can keep the continuous improvement across releases. From the record breaking download number since 4.0 and 4.0.1, I feel that keeping regular release is very important to response to our users, attract more new comers, and bring this product to success. So I suggest we start the 4.1 plan now, and set a target date. Since 4.0 was in July, 4.0.1 was in Oct, I feel some time in 1Q will be a good time for 4.1. Hi Simon, Something to think about: After 4.0.0 we discussed having a public beta with out next major release. If we think this is worth doing, then we should plan on two dates: 1) A public beta data, and 2) a final release date. For the beta to be useful I think we would want it to last 3-4 weeks, enough time to process any new bug reports, identify any critical regressions, and fix them. 4 weeks between both is a minimum form my pov But having a beta is of course the route we should take. Juergen Regards, -Rob I suggest to update the 4.1 planning wiki[1] and: (1) Set the target date. (2) Clean up the planning list, starting from leaving only the active items, and moving the rest to project backlog[2]. Any suggestion/comments? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Planning [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog - Shenfeng (Simon) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@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: Is less size a desire in open office ?
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Vivek Rai vivek@gmail.com wrote: I want to know that is it desired that open office should take less space in HDD when installed on Windows (currently takes 327 MB around space) ? In some cases, size matters. In general it is a trade-off: 1) We want our install images to be small, so they can download quickly and not take up much space on disk and 2) We want our install to be all-included, for most common uses, so the user does not need to download and install additional files. I'm not saying our current packages are mathematically optimized for these two constraints, but we're probably not too far off. But there are two things worth looking at: 1) We don't want to include unnecessary files in our install. That is just dead space. It might be worth doing an inventory of everything that is installed to see if everything is actually used. 2) In multi-user installations, with Citrix, Windows Terminal Services, etc., the partition of files between the program files and the per-user profile is critical. It might be worth examining this more closely to make sure we're not placing read-only files (like spell checking dictionaries) in the per-user directory. This would be suboptimal because it would lead to N copies of the read-only file for N users. Regards, -Rob If yes, then can anyone provide ways how to learn the skill of making the size less ?? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@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: Problem with automatized profile import OO4
uhm... i have take a look to the code... but it's a bit out of my competence... If somebody know how to run this migration in silent mode i'll be grateful! -- Riccardo Arzenton YACME S.r.l. (http://www.yacme.com) Via Majani 2 - 40122 Bologna Tel: +39 051 19985458 - Messaggio originale - Da: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com A: dev@openoffice.apache.org Inviato: Lunedì, 11 novembre 2013 10:03:46 Oggetto: Re: Problem with automatized profile import OO4 Hi, On 07.11.2013 15:48, Riccardo Arzenton wrote: And what if i want to run this import in a silent mode to the user? Something like... import the profile that you find and if you don't find anything just do nothing. ?? Somehow back to your original question. As far as I know I the user profile migration is only triggered in interactive mode from the FirstStartWizard. May be you should have a closer to the code - e.g. main/desktop/source/migration/* - in order to check, if the user profile migration can be performed in silent mode. Best regards, Oliver. Hi, And in your opinion there is no way to re-run this import in a second time? It is recorded that the FirstStartWizard has been perform. This is stored in a corresponding setting value in the user profile. I am not sure, if the run of the user profile migration (as a sub action of the FirstStartWizard) is also recorded. Let me check, the code and the user profile for the corresponding setting - stay tuned. For the FirstStartWizard there is option FirstStartWizardCompleted - have a look into file registrymodifications.xcu found in the user profile. Set its value to 'false' and on the next start of OpenOffice the FirstStartWizard will show up again. When the user profile migration has been executed option MigrationCompleted records it - also found in the above mentioned user profile file. Thus, you need to set it to 'false' to enable the user to run the migration during the FirstStartWizard. Best regards, Oliver. Best regards, Oliver. -- Riccardo Arzenton YACME S.r.l. (http://www.yacme.com) Via Majani 2 - 40122 Bologna Tel: +39 051 19985458 - Messaggio originale - Da: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com A: dev@openoffice.apache.org Inviato: Lunedì, 4 novembre 2013 10:11:19 Oggetto: Re: Problem with automatized profile import OO4 Hi, On 28.10.2013 10:30, Riccardo Arzenton wrote: Hi to all, how can i force OO4 to try to restore the previous user profile after the installation runned by a user script? I want to 1. Install OO4 2. Install some extensions that affect the user profile (the user doesn't have to configure anything) 3. If there is an old OO34 user profile, import that one. The point 1 and 2 are ok. How can I resolve the number 3? There is an OO4 command line that i can launch saying to OO4 import the previous profile without asking anything, and if you don't find it, simply do nothing? Here is what I know about the migration of a user profile from a previous major version: - The migration is part of the 'FirstStartWizard' which runs on the first start of an OpenOffice instance. - The migration code is part of the module 'desktop' which is integrated into the OpenOffice application. Thus, no standalone code available as far as I know. - I did not know any command line option for OpenOffice application to run only this function. Best regards, Oliver. Thanks to all! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@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: the Seamonkey has left the building
Herbert Duerr wrote: On a virtual test system the problem could be reproduced and the patch I suggested works. I already committed it as r1540693 so trunk should build now also on such systems. Indeed it does, thank you Herbert! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[OS2] gcc 4.7.3, CPPULIB now required for some modules
Hi, I moved building of AOO on OS/2 from gcc 4.4.6 to gcc 4.7.3. Everything seems of except for a minor issue: on some modules, UNO constructors from CPPULIB are now required to link dlls. I'm getting this errror Error! E2028: _uno_any_construct is an undefined reference Error! E2028: _uno_type_any_construct is an undefined reference Error! E2028: _uno_any_destruct is an undefined reference Error! E2028: _uno_type_any_assign is an undefined reference mainly in filter graphicfilter dlls and in i18npool/source/textconversion/data/. Adding CPPULIB satisfies the linker. do you have any ideas what could be wrong? thanks, -- Bye, Yuri Dario /* * OS/2 open source software * http://web.os2power.com/yuri * http://www.netlabs.org */ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Updated migration guide?
I'm thinking of starting to create an updated migration guide for AOO. If you have any thoughts on this, or want to help, let me know. Target audience includes: 1) Individual Microsoft Office users, where such users provide their own technical support. 2) IT departments who support users migrating from MS Office to OpenOffice 3) Groups considering moving to AOO and wanting some guidance on migration strategy Rather than starting from scratch, I looked around to see if there is anything close that could be updated. I saw that we have a few older versions of this kind of document: 1) Migration Guide: A guide to ease your migration to OpenOffice.org from other office suites (2004) http://www.openoffice.org/documentation/manuals/oooauthors/MigrationGuide.pdf 2) OpenOffice.org 2.0 Migration Guide (2006) https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual/Migration_Guide 3) OpenOffice.org Migration Guide (2006) https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/images/7/79/0600MG-MigrationGuide.pdf Does anyone know of anything more recent than the 2006 version? Does anyone know where the source for the 2006 PDF is? Or was it generated from the wiki? I don't think it would be extremely difficult to update the guide. The tasks would be mainly: 1) Update branding, logos, references to websites, ownership, license, etc., of OpenOffice. 2) Update screenshots to current UI of AOO 3) Update any technical content that has changed, e.g., platforms supported, file filters, etc. 4) Write content for new migration-relevant features in AOO. 5) General technical and editorial review of the content. Any other ideas? Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Time to start 4.1 planning?
Am 11/11/2013 04:12 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 11/11/13 3:59 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Shenfeng Liuliush...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, all, It was one month since 4.0.1 release. And I noticed some some great works are going to be delivered soon. e.g. the IA2 framework from Steve, the Mac 64-bit support from Herbert, and Windows Patch mechanism from Andre. So I'm thinking, is it a good time to start the 4.1 plan now? We should deliver those great value to our users through a formal release ASAP! And IMO, even only the 3 items above can be enough for a release to be called 4.1. We also want to do OOXML improvement by integrating OSBA patches, and enhance user experience like in-place Input Field, and many other things... While, I think we can keep the continuous improvement across releases. From the record breaking download number since 4.0 and 4.0.1, I feel that keeping regular release is very important to response to our users, attract more new comers, and bring this product to success. So I suggest we start the 4.1 plan now, and set a target date. Since 4.0 was in July, 4.0.1 was in Oct, I feel some time in 1Q will be a good time for 4.1. Hi Simon, Something to think about: After 4.0.0 we discussed having a public beta with out next major release. If we think this is worth doing, then we should plan on two dates: 1) A public beta data, and 2) a final release date. For the beta to be useful I think we would want it to last 3-4 weeks, enough time to process any new bug reports, identify any critical regressions, and fix them. 4 weeks between both is a minimum form my pov But having a beta is of course the route we should take. What about taking into account to keep the possibility to release a second Beta version? It can include fixes for the most nasty and prominent bugs. If we agree on that, we should expand the timeframe to 6 or more weeks. My 2 ct. Marcus I suggest to update the 4.1 planning wiki[1] and: (1) Set the target date. (2) Clean up the planning list, starting from leaving only the active items, and moving the rest to project backlog[2]. Any suggestion/comments? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Planning [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog - Shenfeng (Simon) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Time to start 4.1 planning?
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 11/11/2013 04:12 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 11/11/13 3:59 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Shenfeng Liuliush...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, all, It was one month since 4.0.1 release. And I noticed some some great works are going to be delivered soon. e.g. the IA2 framework from Steve, the Mac 64-bit support from Herbert, and Windows Patch mechanism from Andre. So I'm thinking, is it a good time to start the 4.1 plan now? We should deliver those great value to our users through a formal release ASAP! And IMO, even only the 3 items above can be enough for a release to be called 4.1. We also want to do OOXML improvement by integrating OSBA patches, and enhance user experience like in-place Input Field, and many other things... While, I think we can keep the continuous improvement across releases. From the record breaking download number since 4.0 and 4.0.1, I feel that keeping regular release is very important to response to our users, attract more new comers, and bring this product to success. So I suggest we start the 4.1 plan now, and set a target date. Since 4.0 was in July, 4.0.1 was in Oct, I feel some time in 1Q will be a good time for 4.1. Hi Simon, Something to think about: After 4.0.0 we discussed having a public beta with out next major release. If we think this is worth doing, then we should plan on two dates: 1) A public beta data, and 2) a final release date. For the beta to be useful I think we would want it to last 3-4 weeks, enough time to process any new bug reports, identify any critical regressions, and fix them. 4 weeks between both is a minimum form my pov But having a beta is of course the route we should take. What about taking into account to keep the possibility to release a second Beta version? It can include fixes for the most nasty and prominent bugs. Well, hopefully we do some amount of testing before we have a beta. So the goal should be for the beta to have no nasty and prominent bugs. The beta is a form of insurance and a way of setting expectations. For example, I think these two scenarios are technically equivalent: a) release 4.1.0 after normal testing b) release 4.1.1 to fix major bugs that we missed in 4.1.0 testing. and a') release 4.1.0 beta after normal testing b') release 4.1.0 GA after fixing important bugs found in beta These are technically the same, and take approximately the same amount of time. The difference is in user expectations. A beta designation tells the cautious user to avoid it. It encourages users who are willing to take more risk and help us by giving feedback. It also helps preserve the brand reputation by ensuring that the actual GA releases are high quality. (If we're not careful the users will develop a sense to avoid all x.y.0 releases, believing them to be low quality. Other products have run into that problem, even with x.y.1 and x.y.2 releases. I think it is better if we can avoid having that kind of reputation.) A 2nd beta might be necessary in some rare cases, but I think in most cases we fix the critical bugs found in the beta and just do normal re-testing of those areas in a Release Candidate. Regards, -Rob If we agree on that, we should expand the timeframe to 6 or more weeks. My 2 ct. Marcus I suggest to update the 4.1 planning wiki[1] and: (1) Set the target date. (2) Clean up the planning list, starting from leaving only the active items, and moving the rest to project backlog[2]. Any suggestion/comments? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Planning [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog - Shenfeng (Simon) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@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
Interested in a technical cross-platform mailing?
Hi, We have just founded a group, called liberte0 (Freedom 0). Its purpose is to promote the accessibility for everybody, so that a high variety of users know the free software in accessibility matter, and to let a place so that people can have info on accessibility. This group is French, so our core mailing is in French, but it is about our actions with users and some support to french-speaking users (feedbacks, etc.). But in parallel we opened a multilingual website, whose purpose is to speak mainly in English. This is a technical mailing list. 2 purposes: 1. enabling to new dev who want to work in accessibility technologies or to make thir free software accessible to have a place to ask questions, have feedbacks, with technical devs, so that they can understand that accessibility is not so hard, but it's especially an approach, and not a big effort. It's useful because we meet often devs 7who are interested but who don't know where to begin, where to have doc about the widgets, the at-spi, assistive technologies, etc. Typically I wasn't good to answer to openbox's dev who wanted to do efforts about a11y of her WM, I'm sure you could gi(e her basics to proceed. And maybe it would give ideas to some people to contribute to accessibility so that it is in progress. 2. I feel today one who want to have a global technical approach of the accessibility, in particular in GUI matter, needs to be subscribed to various lists. I think, even if I know most devs are subscribed to all lists, that it'd be useful to have a platform where all devs and power-users could have technical exchanges, if they work for Qt, GTK, distros, oriented or not, at-spi/qt-at-spi, etc. I think this mailing can gather on a single place all the a11y devs, that will enable to everybody to have the same info immediately, to discuss it, to speak together, to exchange their experiences, and so to make proceed accessibility in general, regardless the platform where a dev works (Qt, LibreOffice, OOo, Qt, Mozilla, etc.). If such a project is of interest for you, subsc!ibe to tech AT liberte0 DOT org. Don't hesitate to forward the address. You can subscribe sending a message to sympa AT liberte0 DOT org with subject: subscribe tech. I hope the project, in particular this technical, can be considered as useful and that a full community of accessibility will have a common place to speak regardless the origin of everyone, technically and nationally. Don't hesitate if you have questions about this group, here or on the tech mailing list. We'll answer as much as we can. Regards, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL accelibreinfo, votre partenaire en informatique adaptée aux déficients visuels Mail: te...@accelibreinfo.eu Site Web: http://www.accelibreinfo.eu -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Vinux Support mailing list. To unsubscribe from this group, email vinux-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Our website: www.vinuxproject.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Updated migration guide?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rob Weir wrote: I'm thinking of starting to create an updated migration guide for AOO. If you have any thoughts on this, or want to help, let me know. Target audience includes: 1) Individual Microsoft Office users, where such users provide their own technical support. 2) IT departments who support users migrating from MS Office to OpenOffice 3) Groups considering moving to AOO and wanting some guidance on migration strategy Rather than starting from scratch, I looked around to see if there is anything close that could be updated. I saw that we have a few older versions of this kind of document: 1) Migration Guide: A guide to ease your migration to OpenOffice.org from other office suites (2004) http://www.openoffice.org/documentation/manuals/oooauthors/MigrationGuide.pdf 2) OpenOffice.org 2.0 Migration Guide (2006) https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual/Migration_Guide 3) OpenOffice.org Migration Guide (2006) https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/images/7/79/0600MG-MigrationGuide.pdf Does anyone know of anything more recent than the 2006 version? Does anyone know where the source for the 2006 PDF is? Or was it generated from the wiki? I believe that all the documentation for Version 2 was done on the wiki and was then made into PDF's using an add-on. Regards Keith I don't think it would be extremely difficult to update the guide. The tasks would be mainly: 1) Update branding, logos, references to websites, ownership, license, etc., of OpenOffice. 2) Update screenshots to current UI of AOO 3) Update any technical content that has changed, e.g., platforms supported, file filters, etc. 4) Write content for new migration-relevant features in AOO. 5) General technical and editorial review of the content. Any other ideas? Regards, -Rob -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSgVMHAAoJEH0fu5UhGmBCckAH/iVw3d9/pr10DyDMgxk/Z26c tq011s+F/CkV5XbPbkLc/VTvZqiwG07dYdrkzUb1e+WTdVHHanUoyZwK8MJpK6YS xxkhJGQlIWuN2ctMxJC7/kQI34J/CpZSXOmj0Y0jhImxdefX7n3+QT6jjk4CDWaZ UF/fBcSyjnbi4jHg4lm4vmH4F1ts8FckLfsSLspGDfm5aHVv+CZ1ltAckUu2cbiY jEfBJQZnrhcsTVXzROQxv/9Z5AWaKFA4R5+ctfU3j3ytwO7QDrNuwtro6YPGerZT H/LhfNxIG62g3KVvox/z5pZreOt5U7kuur67J/B3jelP2kO48SuREmuEgQAyKw4= =X7xh -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
How to support newcomers - research
Hello, I have already sent one message to this mailing list. I am a PhD Candidate from Brazil. My research is interest is on how to support new contributors during their first steps in the project. Now, I just need your help answering three quick questions available here (less than 5 minutes required): http://igor.pro.br/limesurvey/index.php?sid=89755lang=en For those who want to offer me some time, I am also interviewing some developers (via textual chat) to obtain deeper information regarding the obstacles faced by newcomers. Just drop me a direct mail and we schedule it for the time that fits better for you Regards -- Igor Fabio Steinmacher Visiting Scholar in Dept of Informatics at UCI (http://www.informatics.uci .edu/) Faculty in Dept. of Computing at Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná
Re: [Accessibility] IA2 Integration proposal
Hi,all From Sandhya Sivakumar's feedback in Call for Automation BVT volunteer for AOO4.1 mail subject, Sandhya have run all the testcases and all of them have passed on Windows7 Platform That is good news and thanks Sandhya's efforts On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:43 PM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.eduwrote: Jean-Phillipe, Removal of earlier revisions of the ia2 branch may have corrupted the MSAA libraries. Have you unregistered UAccCOM.dll with a regsvr32.exe /U command, and have you tried re-registering the oleacc.dll and oleaut32.dll? Additional notes in issue aoo#123640 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123640 . Stuart -- View this message in context: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/Accessibility-IA2-Integration-proposal-tp4655454p460.html Sent from the Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Accessibility] IA2 Integration proposal
Hi,all From Sandhya Sivakumar's feedback in Call for Automation BVT volunteer for AOO4.1 mail subject, Sandhya have run all the testcases and all of them have passed on Windows7 Platform That is good news and thanks Sandhya's efforts On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:43 PM, V Stuart Foote vstuart.fo...@utsa.eduwrote: Jean-Phillipe, Removal of earlier revisions of the ia2 branch may have corrupted the MSAA libraries. Have you unregistered UAccCOM.dll with a regsvr32.exe /U command, and have you tried re-registering the oleacc.dll and oleaut32.dll? Additional notes in issue aoo#123640 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123640 . Stuart -- View this message in context: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/Accessibility-IA2-Integration-proposal-tp4655454p460.html Sent from the Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Time to think about a Language Update release?
On Nov 11, 2013 6:37 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/10/13 8:06 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Ricardo Berlasso rgb.m...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/11/3 Keith N. McKenna keith.mcke...@comcast.net Andrea Pescetti wrote: Comparing http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html and https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/ I see that we have: - Two unreleased languages that are now 100% translated (Bulgarian and Danish) - One language with only about 1000 words left and activity in the last week (Norwegian Bokmal) - Three languages with about 4000 words left and activity in the last week (Thai, Uighur, Hebrew; Indonesian and Icelandic are in the same group, but less active) Would it make sense to schedule a language update 4.0.1 release for late November? I mean something like: announce a translation deadline on the l10n list, produce SDF files for the languages that reach 100% (which of course already include Bulgarian and Danish, and hopefully some of the other languages listed above), building only those languages and releasing an updated source package and binaries for those languages. Yes I believe that it would make sense and would add to our reputation for actively supporting native languages. Indeed. +1 from my part for a language update to 4.0.1. Regards, Ricardo +1 I also think this would be a good idea...hopefully our Release Manager will comment soon. In general I am always a fan of having further languages available as soon as possible. But we are still in the situation that our builds and releases take some time. We have no Mac build bot and we don't have Linux systems that can build against our currently existing baseline. I know we don't have a Mac buildbot but what is meant by the Linux comment. The last I saw 32-bit nightly was OK. 64-bit success seems intermittent. Is this what you mean? All this should be taken into account and even a language update requires some time and we should think careful if we want to do it for 2 languages only. I we can complete at least 5 languages until end of Nov. we can make language update only. Means we will release only this new languages on the AOO401 branch + a new source release. The same as we did for 3.4.1 where we released 12 new languages. And this is only a time limiting factor because many other things are to do and we already started thinking about a 4.1 release. But I am open and in the end I won't be the limiting element here even if I ave to do major parts of such a release Juergen It would make more snse So this would work like we did for 3.4.1 when we added new languages. Why not call it 4.0.2? Well, we already discussed it, but the main reasons would be: for the languages already released in 4.0.1, 4.0.2 would be identical (example: 4.0.1 in French would be identical to 4.0.2 in French) since all commits in the meantime have been done to trunk; a new 4.0.2 release takes a much larger effort than a 4.0.1 language update, so it is harder to find volunteers and this is worth doing only if we have some important bugfixes for 4.0.1 to include (and I don't see any at the moment). It would make more sense for it to be 4.0.1 unless there were critical bug fixes that would justify a 4.0.2. The only potential glitch that I see is handling the release notes. I have a couple of ideas that I will lay out in a separate thread if we decide to go ahead with a language only release. Regards Keith Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@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: [OS2] gcc 4.7.3, CPPULIB now required for some modules
On 11.11.2013 20:52, Yuri Dario wrote: Hi, I moved building of AOO on OS/2 from gcc 4.4.6 to gcc 4.7.3. Everything seems of except for a minor issue: on some modules, UNO constructors from CPPULIB are now required to link dlls. I'm getting this errror Error! E2028: _uno_any_construct is an undefined reference Error! E2028: _uno_type_any_construct is an undefined reference Error! E2028: _uno_any_destruct is an undefined reference Error! E2028: _uno_type_any_assign is an undefined reference mainly in filter graphicfilter dlls and in i18npool/source/textconversion/data/. Adding CPPULIB satisfies the linker. do you have any ideas what could be wrong? Did you change the linker too? When linux distributions switched from the bfd to the gold linker there where problems that libraries that were only linked indirectly had to be mentioned directly [1]. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking#Not_resolving_symbols_in_indirect_dependent_shared_libraries Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
