from:"Jürgen Schmidt"

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

2012-09-06 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On 8/26/12 7:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
 - Original Message -

 From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Cc: 
 Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:08 PM
 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

 On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

  AOO doesn't need to change anything to their current release processes
  other than to stop pointing source downloads at svn (which is the sole
  reason I won't vote for AOO candidates).

 Well this is worth discussion.

 On this page [1]:

 The source downloads go through aoo-closer.cgi, but all of the hashes and 
 signatures go through www.a.o/dist/. Is that your issue?

 No, but I'm tired of talking about it.  If you try to build from source
 the build system will download packages from svn.apache.org instead of
 from elsewhere or the mirrors.  That violates infra policy.

this is already fixed and if you would have build AOO 3.4.1 on your own
you would have noticed this. It was also discussed on ooo-dev.

Juergen

 Or is it this page [2]?

 Please help me understand what is wrong and it will be fixed.

 Best Regards,
 Dave

 [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html
 [2] http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

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

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

2012-08-21 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
 
 In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
 VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
 
 Thank you, Dave.  I consider your statement to override the assertion on
 ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
 address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
 challenged.
 
 I withdraw my -1.
 
 Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
 in either direction.
 
 I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.
 
 It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
 the RC.  As a freelance IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
 a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
 integrity.  In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
 a heuristic.  :)  I wonder why Run RAT did not end up on a pre-release
 checklist anywhere.
 
 Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
 and/or the Artifacts in any way.
 
 *   Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
 *   All archives contain identical source files.
 *   I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
 able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
 close, though seemingly not exact.  The discrepancies are shown below.
 I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the

I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
(MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
tree based on revision r1372282.

After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.

After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
the changed cxx files.

I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
local changes to revision 1372282.

If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
new ones.


 differences exist.
 *   I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
 covered.
 
 The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
 audit:
 
 http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b
 
  ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
 
 No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.
 
  ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
 
 Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
 Certification Revocation Lists.
 
 So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
 redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
 new src ZIP without them.
 
 If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.

Both jars are checked in and this can be seen as mistake. The reason is
that they are built by Netbeans projects and whoever checked in the code
has checked in the dist folder as well. And a further mistake is that
both project don't move the output in the output directory of the
module. That is the default behaviour in all modules, generated output
during the build process goes into the module output directory.

For example:
module_name/unxmacxi.pro/...

The ant script that package the src release takes care of the output
directories and exclude them. In this case the by mistake checked in
jars are packed as well.

This have to be fixed definitely and we have already started to fix it
on trunk. See issues [1] and [2].

The question is if it is release critical or not at this point? I think
it isn't because the jars are the output of 2 existing NetBeans projects
that are part of the src release as well. And I would like to prevent if
possible a new revision number because that means new binaries as well.


I propose the following for this release:

1. revert the debug output in the 3 *.cxx files and repackage the src
release based on r1372282

Cleanup for future releases on trunk.
2. Remove the 2 jars (the dist folder) from svn, adapt the projects to
deliver the output in the module output directory

3. Check other binaries again and make the RAT exclude list more fine
grained to document better for what reason the binaries have to be kept...

Juergen

[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120634
[2] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120635

 
 Marvin Humphrey
 
 
 marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
 gpg:

Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote

2012-08-21 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On 8/21/12 12:03 AM, drew wrote:
 On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 13:32 -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
 Per the IPMC's Guide to Successful Graduation [1] this is the
 optional, but recommended, community vote for us to express our
 willingness/readiness to govern ourselves.  If this vote passes then
 we continue by drafting a charter, submitting it for IPMC endorsement,
 and then to the ASF Board for final approval.   Details can be found
 in the Guide to Successful Graduation.

 Everyone in the community is encouraged to vote.  Votes from PPMC
 members and Mentors are binding.  This vote will run 72-hours.


 [ ] +1  Apache OpenOffice community is ready to graduate from the
 Apache Incubator.
 [ ] +0 Don't care.
 [ ] -1  Apache OpenOffice community is not ready to graduate from the
 Apache Incubator because...

 In my opinion, the issue of binary releases ought to be resolved before
 graduation.

 If the podling believes that ASF-endorsed binaries are a hard requirement,
 then it seems to me that the ASF is not yet ready for AOO and will not be
 until suitable infrastructure and legal institutions to support binary
 releases (sterile build machines, artifact signing, etc) have been created
 and a policy has been endorsed by the Board.

 One possibility discussed in the past was to have downstream commercial
 vendors release binaries a la Subversion's example, which would
 obviate the need for all the effort and risk associated with providing 
 support
 for ASF-endorsed binaries.  For whatever reason, the AOO podling seems not to
 have gone this direction, though.

 Marvin Humphrey
 
 Hi Marvin,
 
 Well, for myself, I don't have a problem with the AOO project not having
 official binary releases - in such a circumstance I would strongly
 prefer no binary release at all. 

As one of the active developers I would have a serious problem if we as
project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And I thought
the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to deliver
binaries of these very popular end user oriented software and can of
course protect the very valuable brand OpenOffice that the ASF now owns
as well.

The satisfaction of developers (at least my personal) is the fact that I
work on a piece of software used by millions of users worldwide and
these users require a binary version. And one of a trusted source and
that is allowed to name it OpenOffice.

I thought also that the ASF could leverage the brand in a way to
generate more donations for the ASF and benefit even more from the
overall success of the project. I know people who didn't know Apache
before but now because of OpenOffice. Maybe worth to think about it!

But I get ones more the impression that I am probably wrong. If the day
should come that I will leave this project it will have nothing to do
with the project itself.

Juergen


 
 On the other hand if there is a binary release from the AOO project then
 I believe it should be treated as a fully endorsed action.
 
 One guys opinion.
 
 Thanks
 
 Drew Jensen
 AOO PPMC member
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 


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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

2012-08-21 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On 8/21/12 12:52 PM, sebb wrote:
On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
downloads.

This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:

(1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
Slovenian.

(2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)

(3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as numerical
equation solver.

(3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
servers.
For all of them exists a fallback at
http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
is not used in practice.
It will be removed in the next release.

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
(incubating).

I think the NOTICE file included in the source release is wrong.
NOTICE files are for *required* notices only, and should be as short
as possible, and should only relate to software that is actually
included in the particular artifact in which they appear.

There are several repeated instances of

===
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
===

There should only be one instance at the head of the file.

The Tomcat (Tomcat? is that really included?) section mentions NSIS -
is that really included?

There are lots of other entries which look superfluous.
It's vital that the NOTICE file only include *required* notices.

I can't argue about the exact content and the format how a NOTICE have
to look like. No changes in the NOTICE file for the src release compared
to AOO 3.4

We had many discussion on the NOTICE file for 3.4 and followed the
advices of we got from these discussion

The discussion took place on
ooo-dev
legal-discuss

And you can find comments here on the list.

If the binary builds include additional software, then their NL files
need to include any required references.

The binaries includes an aggregated NOTICE file where other included
external software (category-b) is integrated.

Here we added the COINMP stuff for the 3.4.1 release that was raised as
feedback to 3.4.

I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.

mmh, I am unsure, the next time somebody else with a different view and
opinion comes up and we have to change it again?

Again we changed it according the advices we got for the AOO 3.4 release.

Juergen

The vote starts now and will be open until:

Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.

The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
There where 11 +1 votes including
one IPMC member binding +1,
10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
one +1 vote from a community member.
No abstinations, no -1 votes.

Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E

The vote will be open for 3 days.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

2012-08-21 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On 8/21/12 5:10 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
 *   I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
 able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it 
 was
 close, though seemingly not exact.  The discrepancies are shown below.
 I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the

 I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
 (MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
 tree based on revision r1372282.

 After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
 made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
 decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
 something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.

 After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
 some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
 up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
 the changed cxx files.

 I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
 local changes to revision 1372282.

 If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
 new ones.
 
 Thank you for the thorough explanation.  If I have understood you correctly,
 all files flagged by either RAT or by the check against the svn export of
 revision 1372282 have been accounted for and we have sufficient rights to
 distribute them.  That being the case, in my view it is not necessary to roll
 a new RC.

exactly that is my understanding when I checked the sources. We always
try to address concerns immediately. But we are also humans and no
machines and can make errors or can oversee things. But as mentioned
before we are happy to incorporate any kind of valuable feedback.

The more detaield the feedback is and potential concerns are the better
it is. And of course it is much easier to change things accordingly. We
are still learning.

 
 +1 to release.

Thanks

Juergen


 
 Marvin Humphrey
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 


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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

2012-08-21 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
has concluded.

The ballot passed.

VOTE TALLY

+1:

IPMC members:

+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski

For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E

Thank you for your support

Juergen



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

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

2012-08-21 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject

On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
 The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
 has concluded.
 
 The ballot passed.
 
 VOTE TALLY
 
 +1:
 
 IPMC members:
 
 +1 Marvin Humphrey
 +1 Dave Fisher
 +1 Jim Jagielski
 
 For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
 
 Thank you for your support
 
 Juergen
 
 


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

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

2012-05-01 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1  has 
concluded.


The ballot passed.

VOTE TALLY

+1:

IPMC members:

+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski

For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E 




Thank you for your support

Juergen



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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

2012-04-30 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 4/26/12 12:44 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of
OpenOffice.org.


This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external
dependencies
(2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and
document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd
party libraries
(3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate



Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4
(incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.


I did a mistake here, May 1th is on Tuesday and not on Wednesday. My 
initial intention was to run the vote until May 1th. But we can extend 
it if people have planned with Wednesday. Please let me know.


If it is ok for the IPMC I would correct it now to

UTC midnight Tuesday,1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC


Regards

Juergen




The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and
is still ongoing for 2 hours.

Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E


Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to
reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be
online again I will send a reference to the final vote result.

Result thread: not available yet in archive, pending

The vote will be open for more than 5 days.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...



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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

2012-04-27 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 4/26/12 12:44 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of
OpenOffice.org.


This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external
dependencies
(2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and
document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd
party libraries
(3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate



Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4
(incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.

The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and
is still ongoing for 2 hours.

Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E


Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to
reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be
online again I will send a reference to the final vote result.

Result thread: not available yet in archive, pending


to complete the missing piece, here the link to the result thread

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E

Juergen



The vote will be open for more than 5 days.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...



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

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

2012-04-25 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache 
OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release 
for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of 
OpenOffice.org.



This release candidate provides the following important key changes 
compared to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external 
dependencies
(2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and 
document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd 
party libraries

(3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under 
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.


The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary 
releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and 
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following 
wiki page:


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

   UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.

The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and 
is still ongoing for 2 hours.


Vote thread: 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E


Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to 
reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be 
online again I will send a reference to the final vote result.


Result thread: not available yet in archive, pending

The vote will be open for more than 5 days.

   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
   [ ]  0 Don't care
   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

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

Re: Request for an early review of an potential Apache OpenOffice release

2012-03-29 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 3/28/12 9:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

2012/3/28 Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com:

On 3/28/12 12:46 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:



It is more or less a pure svn dump.


Right -- just with a few files moved around and a bunch filtered out.


yes, we build the src release package as part of a normal build and I
exclude all svn fiels  + generated files during the build.


FWIW, I like to start from an svn export of the release candidate tag so
that there's no need to exclude version control files.


Are you confident that all the files which match those wildcards were part
of the Oracle SGA or are otherwise properly licensed for ASF usage?


yes I think so, the rat exclude list is maintained mainly from somebody who
should know what's part of the SGA


OK, good enough.  I'm not going to perform a low-level audit.  For this
release, I trust the IP clearance process and the Mentors who supervised it.
For future releases, the IP integrity of this codebase will be the ongoing
responsibility of the AOO development community, and from what I can tell you
folks have the expertise, the incentives, the desire and the habits to serve
as good stewards.

In my view, the process by which this prelimary release candidate was
assembled was satisfactory.  Once the RAT report passes and once the
LICENSE/NOTICE files have been worked out according to the plan proposed by
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann on legal-discuss, I expect to vote +1 on a true AOO
release candidate unless someone else catches something I missed.


We will definitely work on the RAT exclude file to split the wildcards 
into smaller pieces with descriptions why these files are excluded. We 
have simply so many files and as long as they are covered by the SGA we 
thought we can start with this simplified approach. Much more work in 
other real code areas was to do as well.


On the other hand I think it is very important that we bring a first 
release on the road to show that the project exists and is living.


But overall I think we are on a good way.

Juergen



Cheers,

Marvin Humphrey

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




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

Re: Request for an early review of an potential Apache OpenOffice release

2012-03-26 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 3/24/12 5:28 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

2012/3/13 Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com:

we have prepared a new developer snapshot on the way to our first release.


Hello again... I have a couple more questions.

sorry for the late response, I haven't noticed it before



It looks like the dev snapshot src tarball is an export of svn trunk, but with
LICENSE and NOTICE hoisted out of trunk/main/ into the top level.  Is that
right?  If not, can you describe the process by which the src release was
created?


ok, let me explain what I did.

I created and used an ant script (main/solenv/bin/srcrelease.xml) to 
create the src release files as part of the normal build if required. I 
decided to use ant because it allows me some flexibility...


Our trunk contains 4 directories where trunk/ext_sources shouldn't be 
included in a src release because it contains external library packages 
for convenient purposes only. We have to patch some external libs for 
example where an upstreaming is not possible or where the versions we 
use are too old. That is something we would like to improve in the 
future and over time. But they will be downloaded on demand.


trunk/main
trunk/ext_libraries
trunk/ext_sources
trunk/extras

That means I include main, ext_libraries and extras only. ext_libraries 
is a new module where we started to collect build projects for external 
libs in our own office specific build env etc. Main purpose is to have a 
cleaner separation over time.


trunk/main/NOTICE and trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/README are moved 
in the destination root directory of our src release to simply have it 
in the root as expected.


We kept trunk clean so far or better we don't put any files in trunk 
directly and used main as the main source directory. extras contains 
translation files only to keep them somewhat separated as well.




Canonical ASF source releases are supposed to be assembled using a repeatable
build process.


I think it is very repeatable and the script used is part of the source 
as well.


You can run it during a normal build

cd main/instsetoo_native/util
dmake aoo_srcrelease

The resulting files can be found in the output directory besides the 
normal office builds.



The simple ideal is to capture a bare svn export to an

archive so that the source release matches a tag in version control; many
projects also capture a handful of generated files (because they use Maven or
whatever to prepare their releases), but in such cases it must be clear what
those files are and where they came from, and having a large number of
generated files is discouraged.  What we want to avoid is having a src release
dependent on the release manager's local setup, in a worst case vacuuming up
local files which are not present in version control.  So... if you could let
us know how the src archive was created, that would be helpful.


see my description above, anybody can build the src release no local 
setup necessary.


It is more or less a pure svn dump.




What would also be helpful is if you could describe how you are using RAT.
Incubator PMC members typically run raw RAT when vetting releases and review
any files it flags individually, but that's not realistic for AOO -- I
just turned RAT loose on the snapshot and it reported 10793 Unknown
Licenses.  :)  My local copy of RAT is a little old, but even if I bring it
up to date I'm sure I'm going to need to use your exclusion lists.
We run RAT on our build bots (at least on one) and use the exclude list 
that you can find in trunk/main/rat-excludes


You can find the nightly output under 
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html


Right now we have still 1471 files with unknown license but they are 
more or less all part of the SGA or should be.


We are working right now on these files and analyze if it's possible to 
include a license header or not. OR put in in the exclude file with a 
proper comment to document everything.





Lastly, for the record I tried to build from the source archive on my MacBook
Pro running Snow Leopard but ran into problems.  That would ordinarily be a
concern for an incubating release, but for AOO I don't think having IPMC
members run a build-and-test check is particularly useful.  Not a blocker.


well this beast of software needs some preparation before. We have 
longer list of build requirements document in the wiki. In the end it is 
a one time preparation for our volunteers.


I hope we can improve this in the future as well but it's indeed not 
comparable with a Java library project. Sometimes I wish I would work on 
something smaller without such a long history and old code ;-)


I hope this helps to answer your questions, let me know if you need more 
info.


Juergen



Marvin Humphrey

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

Re: AOO LICENSE/NOTICE files

2012-03-23 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 3/21/12 6:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com  wrote:

On Mar 20, 2012 9:54 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org  wrote:



See, for example:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE?view=markup


Hunh? The Apache License, section 4(d) states these go into NOTICE.


First, a general response:

There has been considerable (interminable?) debate on this list and elsewhere
as to what goes in LICENSE and what goes in NOTICE.  Personally, I don't
really care how things get resolved; my main motivation in starting this
thread is that we avoid putting AOO through the wringer that we put Rave,
Kafka, etc. through, because what with all those binaries the cost of rolling
a release candidate for AOO is high.

So please, everyone... get it all out of your system now, and don't all of a
sudden decide that to -1 an AOO release candidate because in your opinion
something that was supposed to go in NOTICE ended up in LICENSE or vice versa
or whatever.

Now, to address the specifics:

Current fashion with regards to NOTICE seems to be that we put stuff there
like the advertising clause of a 4-clause BSD dependency, and that we do *not*
put stuff there like the the copyright notice on 2-clause or 3-clause BSD
or ALv2 unless some copyright holder has decided that they're (ahem) more
special than all our other contributors and demanded specific recognition (via
copyright relocation) in NOTICE.  See LEGAL-62 and LEGAL-59 as apologia, and
the Apache HTTPD LICENSE/NOTICE files as canonical samples.

IMO, the LICENSE/NOTICE dichotomy debates are sound and fury signifying
little, so long as the following are true:

 * All code, either contributed to the ASF or bundled as a dependency, has
   proper provenance documentation.
 * All source code is clearly associated with the license the author
   contributed it under, typically via licenses or license headers embedded
   in individual source files, but sometimes via a local README as might be
   appropriate for a commentless format like JSON.
 * All primary and dependency code is utilized under licenses compatible
   with aggregate distribution under ALv2.

IANAL, but it seems to me that so long as we get individual source file
license tagging right, whether redundant licensing information ends up in
LICENSE or NOTICE is unlikely to be a determining factor in whether
somebody launches a lawsuit.

The AOO folks have got to be as sophisticated as any podling that has come
through the Incubator in recent memory with regards to licensing, and assuming
that we can trust the provenance tracking of Sun/Oracle, I'd say they've got
things covered:

 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance

It's a complicated project and it's good to provide review, but I'm not
inclined to hassle them much about LICENSE/NOTICE.  If anybody else is, let's
do it now, while the cost to the podling is comparatively low.



Thanks for the feedback so far. We are keen to do it correct but it is 
really not easy and any kind of help is very much appreciated.


Thanks

Juergen



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

Re: Request for an early review of an potential Apache OpenOffice release

2012-03-19 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


Hi Marvin,

On 3/15/12 4:23 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

2012/3/13 Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com:

we have prepared a new developer snapshot on the way to our first release.


Congratulations on your progress so far!


We would very much appreciate some early feedback if possible.


I can do a little bit of surface level checking.  Ordinarily, I would probe
deeper into source code provenance, but in this case I will have to trust the
AOO PPMC and the AOO Mentors that proper diligence has been exercised.

The PGP signature and the checksums on the tar.gz archive all looked good.
FWIW, there seemed to be extraneous .txt extensions attached to aoo.KEYS and
some of the checksum files,


I am not sure if I understand you here, can you explain it?


and the format of the checksum files will not work

with md5sum --check and shasum --check -- but that's all nitpicking.


I used gpg on my Mac to generate md5 and sha checksums as found in the 
docu (). I have to check it but is there an incompatibility already known?


Using md5 on my Mac gave me the same checksum




I was a little surprised that the LICENSE file contained only the ALv2, and
that NOTICE points at the websites for dependencies and their licensing.
Ordinarily, I would expect to see entire verbatim licenses for all bundled
dependencies in LICENSE.

The README starts with a UTF-8-encoded BOM.  Just FYI.


do you see a problem with that?


I don't see the Incubation disclaimer in either a dedicated DISCLAIMER file or
the README.  Also, the word incubating is not in the archive filename.

I will add it to the README.

Ok we have to add incubating to the archive file names.

Thanks for your feedback

Juergen




Hope this helps as a start at least,

Marvin Humphrey

marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue Mar 13 00:52:11 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from Juergen Schnmidtj...@apache.org
gpg: aka Juergen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com
gpg: aka Juergen Schmidtjogischm...@gmail.com
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ gpg --print-md MD5 aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz
aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz: 9B 5B 55 09 68 DE 7A C2  54 DC 6C E2 3C 32 5F 17
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ cat aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz.md5.txt
aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz: 9B 5B 55 09 68 DE 7A C2  54 DC 6C E2 3C 32 5F 17
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ gpg --print-md SHA1 aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz
aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz: 83B7 F124 F967 4D5E 3468  24CC D245 2DEB 9171 6689
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ cat aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz.sha1.txt
aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz: 83B7 F124 F967 4D5E 3468  24CC D245 2DEB 9171 6689
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ gpg --print-md SHA512 aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz
aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz: 3898D4EC 92917120 87A016F8 075E3B7B B87E44B0 FED22E3B
 CF5D8850 90CA2713 E9F98A6E 51522AEF 50DC6F30 F36860C4
 C62161B5 F16FE64B 5CD144FF ED043D33
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop $ cat aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz.sha512
aoo-3.4-src.tar.gz: 3898D4EC 92917120 87A016F8 075E3B7B B87E44B0 FED22E3B
 CF5D8850 90CA2713 E9F98A6E 51522AEF 50DC6F30 F36860C4
 C62161B5 F16FE64B 5CD144FF ED043D33

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




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

Re: Request for an early review of an potential Apache OpenOffice release

2012-03-13 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

Hi,

we have prepared a new developer snapshot on the way to our first release.

We would very much appreciate some early feedback if possible. The
AOO3.4 release will be an important milestone for the project and I
think also for Apache to show that project is up and running. And that
Apache is able to host and drive the project forward.

Kind regards

Juergen

On 3/8/12 10:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Hi,

the Apache OpenOffice podling project is moving forward to a first
release that is long expected by the OpenOffice.org community and users.

You know that Apache OpenOffice is the continuation of OpenOffice.org
and that the project is very huge, has a very long history and a very
huge user base all over the world.

IP clearance work to conform to Apache standards or to conform to the
Apache Way and we would like to get some early feedback if we are in
shape with the Apache guidelines for a potential release.

We have prepared developer snapshots over the past several weeks for our
project members to test and review. This developer snapshots can be
found under

Source package
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/src_releases/srcrelease.html

Binary package
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots

The mac version is also signed and the check files can be found in the
download directory directly
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/macos/r1296433/

NOTE: Be careful with the binary packages and save your office user
profiles before testing. Existing OOo 3.x installations will be
overwritten. We provide full install sets to test system integration and
upgrades. Currently we are not able to migrate installed extensions. And
there won't be bundled dictionaries but you can download a dictionary
from the migrated extensions repository
(http://aoo-extensions.sourceforge.net/). But of course we are working
on this.

Please rename your user profile before testing our snapshot build, and
re-rename your user profile after reinstalling a stable OOo version.

Right now we are focusing on show stopper issues but nevertheless we
would like to invite you to review the source packages and also the
binary packages if they fulfill the Apache requirements (e.g license,
NOTICE, ...)

We know that we have no release candidate (RC) right now and that it
would require some work by you. But because of the complexity of the
project we would very much appreciate any kind of early feedback at this
time. And the main goal is to fix potential issues early and to save
time later on when we have a first RC in place.

On behalf of the Apache OpenOffice PPMC

Juergen

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

Request for an early review of an potential Apache OpenOffice release

2012-03-08 Thread Jürgen Schmidt