Re: On requesting CD
See this: http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/cdrom/ Not possible right now - Mail original - De: "Amy Thomas" <79threekids...@gmail.com> À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Dimanche 31 Mai 2015 00:45:59 Objet: On requesting CD Hope that these will be offered again, though I've always just downloaded until the latest version. I cannot get it to work after downloading. I was hoping maybe requesting a CD would help, then saw that option was no longer offered :( I keep getting a message that open office writer is searching for swriter.exe, none of the open office suite applications will open, with slight variations on the .exe file they are missing. I have tried 3 times now. Amy Thomas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Oh, I see ... thanks Kay for the link. Ariel's two reasons are: "a) Centos 5 will get Maintenance Updates until March 31st, 2017" " b) this change should be done in a major version change, as it breaks compatibility in client code". About (a) .. Full updates ran off at Q1 2014. Does this mean we would have to limit to whatever is supported by gcc 4.1 + libsdc++ 4.1 ? About (b) I disagree we should change our numbering just because an OS vendor released a new version. At least we don't do that every time Microsoft or MacOSX releases a new version. Do we still do our builds in WinXP? I guess we could still provide CentOS5 in the packages for the few users this has, but it is important to start upgrading the reference CentOS (and other linux versions). My main concern is that with the removal of stlport we are depending more on the native STL and boost. Newer boost versions are already dropping support for older versions of gcc and gcc 4.1 is not tested anymore. We can leave the codebase untouched for compatibility but the dependencies won't wait for us (or CentOS). And then ... I am considering starting my own branch and drop all remnants of backwards compatibility, but then I could just drop linux altogether as I don't test it and we don't have buildbots for branches :-P. Pedro. On 05/30/15 15:57, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hello; I started the discussion on dropping CentOS 5 and moving on to CentOS 6. There was no comment against moving to the newer version, which AFAICT is the last version to support 32 bits. Assuming AOO builds on CentOS 6, is there any reason to insist on CentOS 5? Pedro.
Re: CentOS build box.
On 05/30/2015 05:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 30/05/2015 Kay Schenk wrote: >> On 05/30/2015 01:57 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> Assuming AOO builds on CentOS 6, is there any reason to insist >>> on CentOS 5? >> There was a dissension. I did ask about the ramifications -- what >> specifically IS the issue to moving to CetnOS 6 -- but got no reply. > > I think it was already explained by Ariel and me at the time. But in > short, OpenOffice 4.x has CentOS 5.x (or the equivalent Red Hat 5.x) as > a baseline distribution: in a certain sense, we commit to keeping > sources buildable on CentOS 5 and to distributing binaries that run on > distributions as old as CentOS 5. In order to change our baseline > distribution we would normally need a compelling technical reason or a > major version change (say, OpenOffice 5.x). I understand this but from a technical standpoint, what are the show stoppers with ver 6 vs 5? Or, put another way, what would be impacted in AOO if this change were made today? > > Then for the buildbots we already use more modern distributions, but a > CentOS buildbot would best be setup with CentOS 5 for the reasons > explained above: a CentOS 5 buildbot would even allow us to build > releases directly on it. Sure, in fact, this is what Juergen suggested in his resignation as Release Manager, and for some reason, I thought (maybe?) we had agreed on: http://markmail.org/message/qh6uzkfjcya647sb I'm not saying this is a prerequisite for > releasing 4.1.2, I'm simply explaining why the current situation makes > it much more useful to have a CentOS 5 buildbot than a CentOS 6 one. > > Regards, > Andrea. > OK, thanks. In summary, we seem to agree that establishing buildbots for our actual binary release candidates is more than just important, but necessary. I do admit that maybe this wasn't clear to everyone. -- MzK "We can all sleep easy at night knowing that somewhere at any given time, the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo." -- David Letterman - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
On 29/05/2015 Armin.Le.Grand wrote: will check if it's in AOO410 branch... Actually, I thought we had consensus on creating a AOO412 branch for OpenOffice 4.1.2. I see you have now committed the fix to AOO410. Of course, this is not really important, it is far more important that the release comes some steps closer, thanks Armin for the fix! But I recommend to settle the branch discussion on this list so that we know whether to reuse (once again) AOO410 as we did for OpenOffice 4.1.1 or to have a dedicated branch for OpenOffice 4.1.2. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
