[dev] Re: Now available: Apache OpenOffice Announcement List
Il 27/12/2011 10.09, Clemens Eisserer ha scritto: Why doesn't apache simply contribute to LibreOffice? I don't see the reasioning behind spliting the scarce resources any further. I can simply invert the question: why doesn't TDF simply contribute to Apache OpenOffice.org? There is not a simple answer: it's a long story of copyleft. In the future, I'm sure Apache, and TDF will find a way to collaborate actively. Davide -- - To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands send email to sy...@openoffice.org with Subject: help
[dev] Re: [OT] Re: Re: Now available: Apache OpenOffice Announcement List
Il 27/12/2011 12.13, eric b ha scritto: Hi, Le 27 déc. 11 à 10:33, Davide Dozza a écrit : Il 27/12/2011 10.09, Clemens Eisserer ha scritto: Why doesn't apache simply contribute to LibreOffice? I don't see the reasioning behind spliting the scarce resources any further. I can simply invert the question: why doesn't TDF simply contribute to Apache OpenOffice.org? There is not a simple answer: it's a long story of copyleft. In the future, I'm sure Apache, and TDF will find a way to collaborate actively. Be sure EducOOo never will (or will be without me), and the day Apache project will do that, I'll have no reason to continue to contribute. Just a reminder: TDF and LibreOffice have been decided in the background, without public discussion, without even inform the OpenOffice.org project leads, by people who autoproclamed themselves as founding members. Clemens, do you understand why there isn't a simple answer? The same concepts are expressed in similar way inside TDF's mailing lists. With the same good reasons. But I'm sure at the end the reason and the common good will prevail on egocentric positions. Davide -- - To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands send email to sy...@openoffice.org with Subject: help
[dev] Exception occurred in transex3.exe on SVL module building OOo
Hi all,
I'm trying buiding OOo DEV300_m81 downloaded as tarballs un WinXP.
This in my configure command:
$ ./configure --with-dict=ITIT,ENUS --with-lang=it --without-junit
--disable-build-mozilla -with-mozilla-build=/cygdrive/c/mozilla-build
--with-cl-home=/cygdrive/c/Programmi/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC
--with-midl-path=/cygdrive/c/Programmi/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.1/Bin
--with-csc-path=/cygdrive/c/WINDOWS/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v3.5
--with-frame-home=/cygdrive/c/Programmi/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.1
--with-asm-home=/cygdrive/c/Programmi/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/Bin
--with-jdk-home=/cygdrive/c/Programmi/Java/jdk1.6.0_17
--with-ant-home=/cygdrive/c/ooo/apache-ant-1.7.1/
--with-psdk-home=/cygdrive/c/Programmi/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.1
This is the error I receive when I build svl module with the command:
build VERBOSE=1
Making:mediatyp.src
mkdir.exe ../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/misc/
/bin/rm -f ../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/misc/mediatyp.src
mkdir.exe -p ../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/svl
:
PATH=${PATH+${PATH}:}/cygdrive/c/ooo/DEV300_m81/solver/300/wntmsci12.pr
o/bin C:/ooo/DEV300_m81/solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/transex3 -p svl -i
mediatyp.src -o ../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/misc/mediatyp.src.wntmsci12.pro -m
../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/svl/dummy/localize.sdf -l all
TransEx 3.1 Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
Rights Reserv
ed.
=
At this point the process stops and the debug windows opens.
The msg error on the debug window reports:
An unhandled win32 exception occurred in transex3.exe [496]
after that if I select NO for debugging the building process ends with:
mv ../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/misc/mediatyp.src.wntmsci12.pro
../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/misc/mediatyp.src
/bin/rm -f ../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/misc/mediatyp.src.wntmsci12.pro
Making:misc.srs
:
PATH=${PATH+${PATH}:}/cygdrive/c/ooo/DEV300_m81/solver/300/wntmsci12.pr
o/bin slfl.pl C:/ooo/DEV300_m81/solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/rsc
-presponse -verbose @C:/cygwin/tmp/mkfRlloJ
Preprocessor commandline: -I. -I. -I..\..\wntmsci12.pro\inc\misc
-I..\inc -I..\
..\inc\pch -I..\..\inc -I..\..\WIN\inc -I..\..\wntmsci12.pro\inc -I.
-IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solver\300\wntmsci12.pro\inc\stl
-IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solver\300\wntmsci12.pro\inc\external
-IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solver\300\wntmsci12.pro\inc
-IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solenv\wntmsci12\inc -IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solenv\inc
-IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\res -IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solver\300\wntmsci12.pro\inc\stl
-IC:\PROGRA~1\Java\JDK16~1.0_2\include\win32
-IC:\PROGRA~1\Java\JDK16~1.0_2\include
-IC:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~2\Windows\v6.1\include
-IC:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~1.0\VC\include
-IC:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~1.0SD\include -IC:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~1.0SD\include
-IC:\ooo\DEV300_m81\solver\300\wntmsci12.pro\inc\offuh -I. -I..\..\res
-I. -DWNT -DNT351 -DMSC
-DM1500 -DSOLAR_JAVA -DFULL_DESK -DPRODUCT -DNDEBUG -DOSL_DEBUG_LEVEL=0
-DUPDVER=300m81(Build:9509) ..\..\wntmsci12.pro\misc\misc\mediatyp.src
C:\Documents and Settings\utente1\AAC.tmp
Preprocessor startline:
C:/ooo/DEV300_m81/solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/rscpp @C
:\Documents and Settings\utente1\AAD.tmp
cpp: line 0, Error: Too many file arguments. Usage: cpp [input [output]]
Error starting preprocessor
dmake: Error code 1, while making '../../wntmsci12.pro/srs/misc.srs'
The TMP environment variable is not set while TMPDIR points to
C:/cygwin/tmp
Any suggestion?
Davide
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[dev] Howto execute OOo for the first time without registration form?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, after installing OOo on Win XP, every new user has to fill the registration form. In OOo 1.1.x some registry keys had to be set up during unattended installation. The same keys don't work anymore. Is there another way to obtain this behavior? More in general, is there an updated list of registry keys that can be used in order to configure OOo installation? Davide -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHrkgqIXgZqRs8KhMRAtfyAJ9MfcVddlWf0fId1RRDkF/he54uuACcCXuJ ftKeH98F1S/XhKZGU/Vd7JA= =TKnE -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Some thoughts about our community
Hi Juergen, I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they have been discussing on other places. I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large proportion of people comes from few companies. The problem is always the same. IMHO our project is likely definable as big companies project with an end-user community collaboration. What I would like to see is the project transformed in a really free software community project with companies collaboration, maybe with a sort of hybridization model. Even IMHO this is the main reason because our community doesn't grow as they should. I think is time to change some rules. The model is showing his limits. What are, at the moment, the proposals to solve such problem and open our project to external contributions also in term of management? A geological era ago (in 2001) someone proposed the creation of a foundation. http://www.openoffice.org/white_papers/OOo_project/openofficefoundation.html This argument has been discussed privately every year. Is it time maybe to rivive this discussion? Davide Juergen Schmidt wrote: Hi Davide, i think [3] is a special thing and we all agree that it is a sad story. We should exactly identify what the problems were and should start to work on them. Does they still exists? Or have some things already changed. [2] is more or less around the JCA where i don't see that a further discussion make sense. If you want to start a discussion around community and community work i would suggest that you should clearly communicate your concerns. List all your concerns in detail and ideally suggest ways how we can improve it. I am sure that we are all open to discuss these points with you. What i personally don't like to do is a general discussion on a level where we talk more about politics than about real community work on a great product. Well a lot of things can be improved and i think we are working already on it. Bring up your concrete concerns and let us discuss Juergen Davide Dozza wrote: Hi all, some days ago I launched a stone into the water. I posted some consideration [1] about the OOoCon and more in general about our community. It seems that things don't happen alone. After the Michael Meeks announce [2] following the Kohei [3] post I think there is something to discuss about our community and how they should evolve. In fact it seems clear to me that the actual community rules, and more in general about how the project is managed, are not anymore suitable to manage what the Community asks. I'm deliberating using two terms, community and Community, because I think there is a common misinterpretation about what a community is. Hoping this start a constructive discussion, Ciao Davide [1] http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/10/02/openofficeorg-conference-2007-some-thoughts/ [2] http://www.gnome.org/~michael/activity.html#2007-10-02 [3] http://kohei.us/2007/10/02/history-of-calc-solver/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Some thoughts about our community
Hi Juergen, I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they have been discussing on other places. I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large proportion of people comes from few companies. The problem is always the same. IMHO our project is likely definable as big companies project with an end-user community collaboration. What I would like to see is the project transformed in a really free software community project with companies collaboration, maybe with a sort of hybridization model. Even IMHO this is the main reason because our community doesn't grow as they should. I think is time to change some rules. The model is showing his limits. What are, at the moment, the proposals to solve such problem and open our project to external contributions also in term of management? A geological era ago (in 2001) someone proposed the creation of a foundation. http://www.openoffice.org/white_papers/OOo_project/openofficefoundation.html This argument has been discussed privately every year. Is it time maybe to rivive this discussion? Davide Juergen Schmidt wrote: Hi Davide, i think [3] is a special thing and we all agree that it is a sad story. We should exactly identify what the problems were and should start to work on them. Does they still exists? Or have some things already changed. [2] is more or less around the JCA where i don't see that a further discussion make sense. If you want to start a discussion around community and community work i would suggest that you should clearly communicate your concerns. List all your concerns in detail and ideally suggest ways how we can improve it. I am sure that we are all open to discuss these points with you. What i personally don't like to do is a general discussion on a level where we talk more about politics than about real community work on a great product. Well a lot of things can be improved and i think we are working already on it. Bring up your concrete concerns and let us discuss Juergen Davide Dozza wrote: Hi all, some days ago I launched a stone into the water. I posted some consideration [1] about the OOoCon and more in general about our community. It seems that things don't happen alone. After the Michael Meeks announce [2] following the Kohei [3] post I think there is something to discuss about our community and how they should evolve. In fact it seems clear to me that the actual community rules, and more in general about how the project is managed, are not anymore suitable to manage what the Community asks. I'm deliberating using two terms, community and Community, because I think there is a common misinterpretation about what a community is. Hoping this start a constructive discussion, Ciao Davide [1] http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/10/02/openofficeorg-conference-2007-some-thoughts/ [2] http://www.gnome.org/~michael/activity.html#2007-10-02 [3] http://kohei.us/2007/10/02/history-of-calc-solver/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Some thoughts about our community
Hi all, some days ago I launched a stone into the water. I posted some consideration [1] about the OOoCon and more in general about our community. It seems that things don't happen alone. After the Michael Meeks announce [2] following the Kohei [3] post I think there is something to discuss about our community and how they should evolve. In fact it seems clear to me that the actual community rules, and more in general about how the project is managed, are not anymore suitable to manage what the Community asks. I'm deliberating using two terms, community and Community, because I think there is a common misinterpretation about what a community is. Hoping this start a constructive discussion, Ciao Davide [1] http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/10/02/openofficeorg-conference-2007-some-thoughts/ [2] http://www.gnome.org/~michael/activity.html#2007-10-02 [3] http://kohei.us/2007/10/02/history-of-calc-solver/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [dev] Some thoughts about our community
Hi Juergen, I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they have been discussing on other places. I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large proportion of people comes from few companies. The problem is always the same. IMHO our project is likely definable as big companies project with an end-user community collaboration. What I would like to see is the project transformed in a really free software community project with companies collaboration, maybe with a sort of hybridization model. Even IMHO this is the main reason because our community doesn't grow as they should. I think is time to change some rules. The model is showing his limits. What are, at the moment, the proposals to solve such problem and open our project to external contributions also in term of management? A geological era ago (in 2001) someone proposed the creation of a foundation. http://www.openoffice.org/white_papers/OOo_project/openofficefoundation.html This argument has been discussed privately every year. Is it time maybe to rivive this discussion? Davide Juergen Schmidt wrote: Hi Davide, i think [3] is a special thing and we all agree that it is a sad story. We should exactly identify what the problems were and should start to work on them. Does they still exists? Or have some things already changed. [2] is more or less around the JCA where i don't see that a further discussion make sense. If you want to start a discussion around community and community work i would suggest that you should clearly communicate your concerns. List all your concerns in detail and ideally suggest ways how we can improve it. I am sure that we are all open to discuss these points with you. What i personally don't like to do is a general discussion on a level where we talk more about politics than about real community work on a great product. Well a lot of things can be improved and i think we are working already on it. Bring up your concrete concerns and let us discuss Juergen Davide Dozza wrote: Hi all, some days ago I launched a stone into the water. I posted some consideration [1] about the OOoCon and more in general about our community. It seems that things don't happen alone. After the Michael Meeks announce [2] following the Kohei [3] post I think there is something to discuss about our community and how they should evolve. In fact it seems clear to me that the actual community rules, and more in general about how the project is managed, are not anymore suitable to manage what the Community asks. I'm deliberating using two terms, community and Community, because I think there is a common misinterpretation about what a community is. Hoping this start a constructive discussion, Ciao Davide [1] http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/10/02/openofficeorg-conference-2007-some-thoughts/ [2] http://www.gnome.org/~michael/activity.html#2007-10-02 [3] http://kohei.us/2007/10/02/history-of-calc-solver/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
