Re: [Libreoffice] BOOL conflict
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:49:27AM +, Michael Meeks wrote: > Urk; another reason not to use BOOL I guess :-) > > What does your iodbcunix.h include ? I guess we might need to do some > hideous #define magic for the iodbcunix.h headers here: did you get a > solution ? Not yet. > I might be tempted to do: > > #define BOOL IODBC_BOOL > #include > #undef BOOL If I only knew where it's included. > or somesuch, if this is the only conflict. Is a general sal_Bool -> Bool, sal_True -> true, sal_False -> false replacement ok? Then we could remove that type... Thomas ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] High contrast issue
Kendy is this in regards to the high contrast issue I found? On 12/09/2010 02:13 AM, Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Andrew, On 2010-12-02 at 22:16 +, Andrew C. E. Dent wrote: I have made simple HC variants for the start center images here:http://people.bath.ac.uk/ea2aced/OOo/Backing_HC.zip Hope that helps,Andrew Thank you, looks great! :-) I've committed them to: ooo_custom_images/hicontrast/brand/shell and pushed (sorry for being so slow on that). Now the code to actually use them is pending ;-) Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi, On 08/12/2010 21:20, Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-12-08 04:20, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi Alexander, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:04 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote: In countries where power supplies are intermittent, or irregular, it matters a great deal. If your phone or electricity lines crap out part way through the download, and you were on a pay-per-minute connection, what would you do ? Risk downloading it, or go and obtain a pirated copy of some other more freely available software suite ? Would you download a copy of that proprietary suite instead ? or would you get it on CD ? Ultimately, I'd love to see some Ubuntu style ship-it service to provide CDs to serve the 3rd world cheaply. As/when we have a foundation and funding in place that seems like an obvious use of funds. I am also on the Mageia marketing team and we have just discussed the same issue and we are going to promote local Mageia communities to issue copies on DVD's. This seems like the most logical and most inexpensive way of promoting the distro where there is a need for it on disc. We could certainly promote this for our groups as well. This would also promote the creation of LibreOffice communities where they do not exist. CD or DVD may not be the best for some countries where heat and humidity are very high, their life is very short (sometimes less than 3 months from my own experience). In Benin or Burkina Faso for example, USB sticks are far better than CD. Kind regards Sophie ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] help.libreoffice.org MediaWiki DB snapshot to play with?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, wrote: > Hi, all. I read part of the thread "LibreOffice WikiHelp" and recognized > that there are a large body of MediaWiki Extensions that might help. > However, rather than ask to try it out on your systems, I'd like to try > them on my own, against the MediaWiki database backing help.libreoffice.org. > > Wikipedia offers their MySQL gzipped dump snapshots, and I'm hoping that > I can get a copy of yours. One Extension that has some promise is > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Hierarchy . I'd like to try it > and see how easy, hard or impossible it would be, and if it could help > to present the Help in a more "chapter/book-like" form. > > Oh, and having specific versions of MediaWiki software and any existing > extensions would rock, so I can replicate the real site better. :) http://help.libreoffice.org/Special:Version > > Cheers, > Jesse Adelman > Bold and Busted LLC > Brisbane, CA USA > http://www.boldandbusted.com/ > "Home of http://libreoffice.boldandbusted.com/"; ;) > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Fwd: Auto Reply: ... please un-subscribe this person
Uh, can you un-subscribe/filter this person until he returns or asks to re-subscribe? I got this auto reply directly after posting my previous message to the list... :/ He says he won't be back until the 15th... Thanks. This must be getting sent to everyone who posts? Or maybe I'm special. --- Begin Message --- I'm currently not in my office and not reading any mail. Your mail has reached my inbox, and been placed in a queue, which I'll probably start processing on December, 15th, 2010. Due to the sheer amount of mails which this queue might contain by then, I may decide for some mails that they're worth being deleted without detailed reading. If the issue because of which you contacted me still requires my attention on December, 20th, 2010, please do not hesitate to re-send your mail then, if I did not yet reply. - Ich bin zur Zeit nicht im Büro und lese keinerlei Mails. Ihre Mail ist in meinem Eingangskorb angekommen, und wurde damit auf die "zu-bearbeiten"-Liste gesetzt, welche ich am 15. Dezember 2010 abzuarbeiten beginnen werde. Auf Grund der schieren Menge an bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt eingetroffenen Mails ist es möglich, dass ich entscheiden werde, dass Dinge, die bis dahin ohne meine Mitwirkung funktionierten, meiner Aufmerksameit nicht mehr bedürfen. Kurz: Es mag sein, dass ich einige Mails löschen werde, ohne sie im Detail zu lesen. Wenn das Anliegen, wegen dessen Sie mich kontaktiert haben, meine auch am 20. Dezember 2010 noch meine Aufmerksamkeit erfordert, zögern Sie bitte nicht, Ihre Mail dann erneut zu senden, falls ich noch nicht geantwortet habe. --- End Message --- ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] help.libreoffice.org MediaWiki DB snapshot to play with?
Hi, all. I read part of the thread "LibreOffice WikiHelp" and recognized that there are a large body of MediaWiki Extensions that might help. However, rather than ask to try it out on your systems, I'd like to try them on my own, against the MediaWiki database backing help.libreoffice.org. Wikipedia offers their MySQL gzipped dump snapshots, and I'm hoping that I can get a copy of yours. One Extension that has some promise is http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Hierarchy . I'd like to try it and see how easy, hard or impossible it would be, and if it could help to present the Help in a more "chapter/book-like" form. Oh, and having specific versions of MediaWiki software and any existing extensions would rock, so I can replicate the real site better. :) Cheers, Jesse Adelman Bold and Busted LLC Brisbane, CA USA http://www.boldandbusted.com/ "Home of http://libreoffice.boldandbusted.com/"; ;) ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] High contrast issue
Hi Andrew, On 2010-12-02 at 22:16 +, Andrew C. E. Dent wrote: > I have made simple HC variants for the start center images > here:http://people.bath.ac.uk/ea2aced/OOo/Backing_HC.zip > Hope that helps,Andrew Thank you, looks great! :-) I've committed them to: ooo_custom_images/hicontrast/brand/shell and pushed (sorry for being so slow on that). Now the code to actually use them is pending ;-) Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Hi Miklos, On 2010-12-08 at 18:59 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > > Actually - if anyone volunteers to improve the Main_Page (eg. collect > > links to swriter/start, scalc/start, ...), I'll be happy to create the > > account for him to do that; or I can cut and paste any improvements sent > > to this thread directly as an wiki update. > > I guess it's not so hard to collect all the start pages if you have > access to the SQL db under the wiki - but without having that I would > put something like: Cool, thank you a lot! Now it's there :-) Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Different x86 ABI on BSDs and MaxOSX
Hi Caolan, On 2010-12-08 at 16:49 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > So attached is my proposed change that would allow the testtools tests > to run correctly during the build without being hacked out or disabled, > which is rather important because if those tests fail it implies that > the final LibreOffice has busted UNO and will fail in strange and > wonderful ways. I've checked the ABI also in here: http://agner.org./optimize/calling_conventions.pdf and from what I see on page 19, it seems to me that *BSD defaults to the 'fastcall' variant, right? The table suggests that the small structs that combine int and float are returned on stack, but it seems to me that your patch does not handle that; or am I wrong? :-) Thank you, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Different x86 ABI on BSDs and MaxOSX
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 20:38 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > I tested that testtools would build and pass its tests. That *should* be > sufficient to ensure that the uno bridge is 100%, but the testtools is > comprised of tests that got added when the last time it was thought that > all conditions were covered turned out to be false :-). So a full build > to the end and a successful final output execution would be appreciated. > I tend to to check =RANDBETWEEN(1;100) in calc as my basic sanity check. Do we enable / run the bridgetests ? they were deadly useful for the Mono binding as/when I wrote that - and seemed fairly complete. Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Different x86 ABI on BSDs and MaxOSX
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 18:52 +0100, Robert Nagy wrote: > Hey, > > Sweet! > > Should I do a full build with it on i386 or did you test it already > on the box? I tested that testtools would build and pass its tests. That *should* be sufficient to ensure that the uno bridge is 100%, but the testtools is comprised of tests that got added when the last time it was thought that all conditions were covered turned out to be false :-). So a full build to the end and a successful final output execution would be appreciated. I tend to to check =RANDBETWEEN(1;100) in calc as my basic sanity check. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibO download size [was: Comments on RC1]
Hi Bernard, On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 19:55 +0100, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > The multi-installer for people in need for one single package download > in their language We're working hard at shrinking this still. > The EN-installer and lang-pack for others with main focus on the > download size willing to download and install two packages one after > another. With this being done as a fall-back as well. > Of course there is much room for improvement - but I think this can wait > until the release of LibO 3.3.0. Lets see how far we can get in the next few days. Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi there, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 08:04 -0800, plino wrote: > No. LO is NOT working on it. That is quite comic; if you read my blog, you'll discover I've been working on it for two days, and with some success - and I've been doing few of the other urgent things in my life that need doing, in order to do so; moreover I've been doing this in my spare time. Before that I was fixing stupid BrOffice bugs at some length - Windows packaging is a nightmare. > I have collaborated (and still do) on several open source projects. I know > that. But sometimes provocation is the only way to get noticed and answered > to... That approach is really not appreciated, nor necessary here. > I do have a Windows machine and I have been testing the builds. I don't know > how to code. My contribution is helping others on the Users forum. .. > I'm not a leecher or a troll. Good stuff, All the best, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes
Hi Luke, > I realized it would be possible to just have brackets in the SmExpressionNode > Visitor. That's not all true... I added all the brackets initially because I had some problems with a few isolated things... Try writing binom a b + c in the command text field... Then enter visual editor an move as much to the right as possible, e.g. the rightmost position in the toplevel line, and write + d Now "+d" will be in the toplevel line... But if you enter the command text editor and changes c to e, then +d will be in the second line of the binom... I don't think this is parsing error... But an unpleasant obscurity in the format... I'm not even sure I fixed this one with my excessive use of brackets... But the issue is there now... We should probably fix it and add a unit test for it to avoid regressions... The problem is that when binom has these obscurities maybe some of the other command have similar obscurities... :( Btw, you latest patch didn't introduce this issue... So it's probably been there for a while... > Oh, another thing I noticed was that there seems to be a crash when > moving to the right of an SmPlaceNode and deleting it Interesting... I've had that bug once, but I've never been able to reproduce it... Can't this time either... Do you have any more specific steps ? > Anyway, some other stuff, I noticed something else while looking around > and noticed what seemed to me to be a better place to deal with the > percent sign. Looks good to me... It doesn't hurt to have clean code :) - Really nice work... I've pushed both patches... -- Regards Jonas Finnemann Jensen. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 02:25, Luke Dixon <6b8b4...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Jonas, > >> By the way, is the SmNodeToTextVisitor as good as it gets now? >> Or is it possible to do more improvements ? and if so, should we leave >> as an easy hack we or someone can pickup later? (if not lets remove it >> from the wiki). >> I don't know how good it is with regards to minimizing the use of >> brackets. E.g. if it's realistic to do it any better... >> > > I'm very sorry for stretching this out so long. I've played a little > more with this and I'm not sure I'm really getting anywhere. I realized > it would be possible to just have brackets in the SmExpressionNode > Visitor. It seems to work okay to me, but maybe there will be other > problems caused by this as I haven't been able to work out why some of > the extra brackets were there. I don't know what you would think about > this? > > Anyway, some other stuff, I noticed something else while looking around > and noticed what seemed to me to be a better place to deal with the > percent sign. Again, I'm not sure if I've found the right place to deal > with this, but it seemed better to deal with it like this rather than in > SmNodeToTextVisitor. > I guess that as I came across this while looking at SmNodeToTextVisitor > I thought it could be solved there. > > Oh, another thing I noticed was that there seems to be a crash when > moving to the right of an SmPlaceNode and deleting it. It would be very > easy to patch the symptoms of this in SmCursor::AnnotateSelection, but I > guess that it would be better to work out what is going wrong. I haven't > worked it out yet, but I thought it would be best to mention it. > > Sorry, for so much in one email. > > Regards, > Luke > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
2010/12/8 Sebastian Spaeth : >> Thanks Sebastian for the link. It helps. Saddly, I don't see references on >> easter eggs for Office 2003 and later. > > They could just not be found as the code is closed. In contrast to LibO > :-P > > Really, we are not talking virii. We are talking scrolling contributor > credits on some key presses and stuff. > > But it's open source, if people don't want easter eggs, they can always > provide a --enable-boring-version option for compilation. Gentoo has a > -offensive USE flag too that disables certain stuff. > Accidentally I did not cc the list with my last mail to Olivier. Rest assured that none of the Easter Eggs [1] are present in LibreOffice code. [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Easter_Eggs Or did you find any? Andras ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
> Thanks Sebastian for the link. It helps. Saddly, I don't see references on > easter eggs for Office 2003 and later. They could just not be found as the code is closed. In contrast to LibO :-P Really, we are not talking virii. We are talking scrolling contributor credits on some key presses and stuff. But it's open source, if people don't want easter eggs, they can always provide a --enable-boring-version option for compilation. Gentoo has a -offensive USE flag too that disables certain stuff. Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > > Hi Norbert, > > Le 08/12/10 15:41, Norbert Thiebaud a écrit : > >> Seriously ? What kind of noise ? (I hate to imagine the kind of work >> environment where the mere existence of such eggs would be cause for >> any concern, or even - for that matter - cause for any attention at >> all... at least nothing above the casual discussion about last night >> sport's game) >> > > > AFAIK, the French administrations had serious qualms about Easter Eggs > in the OOo software. ahh... the 'French Administration' yes, I can see how that could be indeed a central pre-occupation, since productivity is such highly regarded in these circle on the other hand, I'd like to think that our 'deputés' and 'gendarmes' are distracted by the easter eggs... while they are doing that they are less likely of doing the rest of us harm :-) > I don't know about others. Perhaps Sophie can > confirm / deny whether that issue was raised. It is unfortunate, because > personally, I liked them :-) More seriously The 'bloat' argument to remove them doesn't seems very serious. Considering the numbers crunched by Michael and discussion on that subject from a couple of months ago, it seems that these 'eggs' are at least 2 order of magnitudes below the multi-meg 'license' bloat. And the 'security' argument doesn't far any better. There is no rational reason to think that these pieces of code are more or less likely that the rest of the code to be the target of a backdoor-insertion plot. So keep-them or remove-them... I have no particular attachment (heck I did not even know they existed until very recently) but there is no point making up straw-men to push the issue. Norbert > > > Alex > > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Marc Paré wrote: > > > Le 2010-12-08 12:00, Olivier Hallot a écrit : > > The no > ise I had to fight in a 120.000 desktop deployment I am managing, by the > IT security dept who almost made me write under oath that these stupidities > are > not a security threat. > > Sorry, but I had pretty tought times dealing with that to have fun with. It > is > not. OOo and LO are the underdogs in a (any) migration situation and easter > eggs > is another ammo for those who want to go back to Microsoft Office. I rather > prefer not to give'em that sweet taste. > > No matter how good or fun is your easter-egg, it puts you a label of lack of > seriousness when it comes to address the enterprise needs or code quality > reputation. > > > > I have to echo Olivier's words too. I am/was in the process of recommending > the OOo (and now) LibreOffice to a school board in Canada. "Easter Eggs" at > this point would not go well with the committees and higher ups. As with > Olivier's situation, other members of committees at this school board as > well as many other stakeholders will grab to any kind of excuse to de-value > the LibreOffice distro in order to keep MSO on the computers. Must I remind you that MSO and Windows have known easter eggs. and there is no way to affirm that MSO 2007 doesn't have any, just not any known at this time, (unless you have access to the source to confirm ?) My grand-ma used to say: there is none more deaf that the one who doesn't want to hear. Once you removed _that_ excuse, they'll find another one. > IMO, it does > not make the suite look professional if Easter eggs are hidden in the code. > My particular board has been blacklisted twice this year for having been the > source of virus mailouts (due to only 2 teachers irresponsible behaviour on > their email system). They are now very wary of any piece of software that > has any kind of hidden code. with MSO 100% of the code is hidden. with Libre-office 0% of the code is hidden. even the 'eggs' are in plain sight for everybody to audit. Norbert > > Add this to the reason why we are now recommending the use of LibreOffice > rather than OpenOffice. It just makes it harder to market the distro. > > Marc > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice-3.3-rc1 git tag and fixes reviewing
Thorsten Behrens píše v Pá 03. 12. 2010 v 21:50 +0100: > Petr Mladek wrote: > > libreoffice-3-3 git branch is still opened for fixes. Just please, send > > your patches for review to this mailing list before you commit. You > > might ask a particular person for review via CC or on the irc channel > > #libreoffice. > > > Hi Petr, all, > > it would then be nice if the reviewer (when the fix is ok) could > commit with a proper --author, and a sign-off note (just add -s). > That makes it relatively easy to check for review, without having to > search the mailing list. Yup, that make sense. I have summarized all the ideas at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development#Hack_and_commit_on_a_stable_branch Best Regards, Petr ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > > Your IT department should not allow the use of MS products then: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products > :) > Emacs is the worst. It even contains Tetris :-). > > Sebastian > Thanks Sebastian for the link. It helps. Saddly, I don't see references on easter eggs for Office 2003 and later. -- Olivier Hallot Steering Comittee The Document Foundation ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:09:33 -0700, "Tor Lillqvist" wrote: > Just in case anybody is counting votes, I am against removing Easter eggs. I > think we need more of them. And more rude comments in the source code. In obscure languages! Perhaps German? Ahh no wait... pgp1ntXNd0TLY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Your IT department should not allow the use of MS products then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products :) Emacs is the worst. It even contains Tetris :-). Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > > Hi Norbert, > > Le 08/12/10 15:41, Norbert Thiebaud a écrit : > >> Seriously ? What kind of noise ? (I hate to imagine the kind of work >> environment where the mere existence of such eggs would be cause for >> any concern, or even - for that matter - cause for any attention at >> all... at least nothing above the casual discussion about last night >> sport's game) >> > > > AFAIK, the French administrations had serious qualms about Easter Eggs > in the OOo software. I don't know about others. Perhaps Sophie can > confirm / deny whether that issue was raised. It is unfortunate, because > personally, I liked them :-) well, why not using a setting like in compile time: --enable-easter-eggs And you can decide if you want them or not? -- Jesús Corrius Document Foundation founding member Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Le 2010-12-08 12:00, Olivier Hallot a écrit : The no ise I had to fight in a 120.000 desktop deployment I am managing, by the IT security dept who almost made me write under oath that these stupidities are not a security threat. Sorry, but I had pretty tought times dealing with that to have fun with. It is not. OOo and LO are the underdogs in a (any) migration situation and easter eggs is another ammo for those who want to go back to Microsoft Office. I rather prefer not to give'em that sweet taste. No matter how good or fun is your easter-egg, it puts you a label of lack of seriousness when it comes to address the enterprise needs or code quality reputation. I have to echo Olivier's words too. I am/was in the process of recommending the OOo (and now) LibreOffice to a school board in Canada. "Easter Eggs" at this point would not go well with the committees and higher ups. As with Olivier's situation, other members of committees at this school board as well as many other stakeholders will grab to any kind of excuse to de-value the LibreOffice distro in order to keep MSO on the computers. IMO, it does not make the suite look professional if Easter eggs are hidden in the code. My particular board has been blacklisted twice this year for having been the source of virus mailouts (due to only 2 teachers irresponsible behaviour on their email system). They are now very wary of any piece of software that has any kind of hidden code. Add this to the reason why we are now recommending the use of LibreOffice rather than OpenOffice. It just makes it harder to market the distro. Marc ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:04:30 -0800 (PST), plino wrote: > No. LO is NOT working on it. This has been discussed on other topics since > late Nov (Beta1 or 2) Yes, they are. Michael Meeks disected the Windows installer and posted information about it just recently. Stop pretending you know what people do when you don't. http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-td1954148i60.html#a1969084 I see a thread on the disc...@tdf mailing list (NOT the LO development list) in which lots of people, but no code-contributing developer participated. And from that you can deduce what people are actually working on? Congratulation to your prophetic abilities! > But now Sophie Gautier says exactly the same thing and everybody listens, > but the reasoning is that "now is not a good time because we are already at > RC1" Perhaps because she said it in the developer list? You did see the part by Michael about the correlation between whining and the motivation to actually work on things? > I have collaborated (and still do) on several open source projects. I know > that. But sometimes provocation is the only way to get noticed and answered > to... And sometimes it is the only way to get into peoples virtual or physical kill files. I know I stopped reading mails from you as the mostly contained non-constructive whining, demanding and something that is very close to insulting. If that is what you call collaborating... > My contribution is helping others on the Users forum. That is a great contribution and very welcome. Thank you. > And I'm willing to report the bugs I find when a proper bug tracker is set > up. http://www.documentfoundation.org/develop/ has a whole section called "Filing bugs" http://wiki.documentfoundation.org contains a link to "Information about reporting bugs" as the third sentence on the main page. If there are better ways on how to link to the bug tracker, feel free to suggest them. Until then, I propose to bring constructive criticism rather than insults (even if you'd call it provocation). It tends to win more hearts. Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Le 2010-12-08 04:20, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi Alexander, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:04 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote: In countries where power supplies are intermittent, or irregular, it matters a great deal. If your phone or electricity lines crap out part way through the download, and you were on a pay-per-minute connection, what would you do ? Risk downloading it, or go and obtain a pirated copy of some other more freely available software suite ? Would you download a copy of that proprietary suite instead ? or would you get it on CD ? Ultimately, I'd love to see some Ubuntu style ship-it service to provide CDs to serve the 3rd world cheaply. As/when we have a foundation and funding in place that seems like an obvious use of funds. I am also on the Mageia marketing team and we have just discussed the same issue and we are going to promote local Mageia communities to issue copies on DVD's. This seems like the most logical and most inexpensive way of promoting the distro where there is a need for it on disc. We could certainly promote this for our groups as well. This would also promote the creation of LibreOffice communities where they do not exist. Marc LO Marketing Member -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Hi Norbert, Le 08/12/10 15:41, Norbert Thiebaud a écrit : > Seriously ? What kind of noise ? (I hate to imagine the kind of work > environment where the mere existence of such eggs would be cause for > any concern, or even - for that matter - cause for any attention at > all... at least nothing above the casual discussion about last night > sport's game) > AFAIK, the French administrations had serious qualms about Easter Eggs in the OOo software. I don't know about others. Perhaps Sophie can confirm / deny whether that issue was raised. It is unfortunate, because personally, I liked them :-) Alex ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Le 08/12/10 10:20, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi Michael, > Would you download a copy of that proprietary suite instead ? or would > you get it on CD ? Ultimately, I'd love to see some Ubuntu style ship-it > service to provide CDs to serve the 3rd world cheaply. As/when we have a > foundation and funding in place that seems like an obvious use of funds. I would probably download it from one of those iffy sites that offer piecemeal bits of applications / files / etc that you can then glue back together again, errm, Usenet as I seem to recall had some nice examples of this. However, that would be very bad for my business as an IP lawyer :-). As to redistributing via CDs to developing countries, I wholeheartedly agree, bearing in mind that the logistics of such an organisation would be no mean feat :-) > >> One way (but not the only way) of doing this is of course to >> reduce unnecessary bloat. > > We have a lot of bloat. We hate it. Removing it takes time. We are > investing resources in doing that. Please be patient. I am not impatient, I was merely taking exception to Tor's apparent indifference to the problem. I consider myself lucky, I have broadband access most of the time, despite living in a rural area, but I remember the days when things were far, far worse, and how frustrating it was to be faced with the dilemma of deciding what to download and how much it was going to cost me, if I even succeeded. I also appreciate that a lot of effort is going into reducing bloat. What would, IMHO, be a good idea, for the Foundation, would be to define a list of hardware requirements that it needs momentarily or in the foreseeable future to be able to operate comfortably pending the code diet that the software is about to go on ;-) As an example, it may be possible for me to offer to help out (since I can't code, as in I haven't learnt) by providing access to a dedicated server or server space, but at the moment I have no idea what kind of requirements there are for that. Alex ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Just in case anybody is counting votes, I am against removing Easter eggs. I think we need more of them. And more rude comments in the source code. --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] README translation for 3.3
2010/12/8 Kohei Yoshida : > Hi there, > > I need some help with figuring out how the readme is built during the > build process. > > As I've noticed, the master copy of the readme has been updated; lots of > new paragraphs added and some removed. The problem is that, where the > paragraphs were removed I see some bogus paragraphs from another locale > creeping in. I've checked en-US and ja locales, but I'm pretty sure > this is the case for all locales. I've attached the text version of > README for en-US locale. Look under the User Support section to find > those bogus paragraphs. By the way, README was updated several times lately but it was not offered for localization. The extra lo-build.sdf/.pot does not contain these new/changed strings. I think if we had everything updated, these issues would be resolved automatically. Best regards, Andras ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:48:16PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > > Did I miss the point? :) > > You did ;-) The point is not to browse the help per se (even though it > can of course evolve into that), but the real usage is to hit F1 in > LibreOffice without a help installed, and you'll get _directly_ to the > right page - eg. if you navigate by keys in the File menu to 'Save > As...', and hit F1' you'll get directly to > > http://help.libreoffice.org/Swriter/.uno:SaveAs Oh, I see. Thanks for the explanation. On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:22:47PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Actually - if anyone volunteers to improve the Main_Page (eg. collect > links to swriter/start, scalc/start, ...), I'll be happy to create the > account for him to do that; or I can cut and paste any improvements sent > to this thread directly as an wiki update. I guess it's not so hard to collect all the start pages if you have access to the SQL db under the wiki - but without having that I would put something like: "For ease of access, the LibreOffice help has been split up into several sections. Yes, this main page needs a lot of work. Once we get around to doing a good conversion, it will improve. We promise. * [[Swriter/start|Writer]] * [[Scalc/start|Calc]] * [[Sdraw/start|Draw]] * [[Simpress/start|Impress]] * [[Smath/start|Math]]" pgp5ZOLUEEvbx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Le 08/12/10 15:22, Jan Holesovsky a écrit : > We have these, eg. when you hit F1 in a freshly opened Writer, you get > to: > > http://help.libreoffice.org/Swriter/start > When I hit F1 on my Macbook, my screen brightness diminishes... When I hit Fn-F1 together, the inline help is displayed. I'm actually rather happy with that :-)) and would prefer for it to stay that way. However, this does pose the problem of consistency of help guidelines over the various OS platforms. Alex ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Different x86 ABI on BSDs and MaxOSX
Hey,
Sweet!
Should I do a full build with it on i386 or did you test it already
on the box?
On (2010-12-08 16:49), Caolán McNamara wrote:
> So, checking this out on Robert's OpenBSD box and digging into MacOSX
> land it appears that Linux has different x86 struct returning rules than
> MacOSX and OpenBSD and I therefore assume all BSD derived OSes on x86
> follow the same rules, especially as Robert says that FreeBSD have just
> hacked out the test in their platform builds.
>
> So attached is my proposed change that would allow the testtools tests
> to run correctly during the build without being hacked out or disabled,
> which is rather important because if those tests fail it implies that
> the final LibreOffice has busted UNO and will fail in strange and
> wonderful ways.
>
> Apparently works fine on Linux x86 (though I typically build on x86_64).
> If this works for you guys, I'd then like to see if we could just use
> the same gcc3_linux_intel bridge for MacOSX as the next step.
>
> C.
> diff --git a/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
> b/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
> index 0e804ed..24818e6 100644
> --- a/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
> +++ b/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void cpp2uno_call(
>
> if (pReturnTypeDescr)
> {
> -if (bridges::cpp_uno::shared::isSimpleType( pReturnTypeDescr ))
> +if (x86::isSimpleReturnType( pReturnTypeDescr ))
> {
> pUnoReturn = pReturnValue; // direct way for simple types
> }
> @@ -359,15 +359,39 @@ extern "C" typedef void (*PrivateSnippetExecutor)();
>
> int const codeSnippetSize = 16;
>
> +#if defined (FREEBSD) || defined(NETBSD) || defined(OPENBSD) ||
> defined(MACOSX)
> +namespace
> +{
> +PrivateSnippetExecutor
> returnsInRegister(typelib_TypeDescriptionReference * pReturnTypeRef)
> +{
> +//These archs apparently are returning small structs in registers,
> while Linux
> +//doesn't
> +PrivateSnippetExecutor exec=NULL;
> +
> +typelib_TypeDescription * pReturnTypeDescr = 0;
> +TYPELIB_DANGER_GET( &pReturnTypeDescr, pReturnTypeRef );
> +const bool bSimpleReturnStruct =
> x86::isSimpleReturnType(pReturnTypeDescr);
> +const sal_Int32 nRetSize = pReturnTypeDescr->nSize;
> +TYPELIB_DANGER_RELEASE( pReturnTypeDescr );
> +if (bSimpleReturnStruct)
> +{
> +exec = privateSnippetExecutorGeneral; // fills eax
> +if (nRetSize > 4)
> +exec = privateSnippetExecutorHyper; // fills eax/edx
> +}
> +return exec;
> +}
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> unsigned char * codeSnippet(
> unsigned char * code, sal_PtrDiff writetoexecdiff, sal_Int32
> functionIndex, sal_Int32 vtableOffset,
> -typelib_TypeClass returnTypeClass)
> +typelib_TypeDescriptionReference * pReturnTypeRef)
> {
> -if (!bridges::cpp_uno::shared::isSimpleType(returnTypeClass)) {
> -functionIndex |= 0x8000;
> -}
> PrivateSnippetExecutor exec;
> -switch (returnTypeClass) {
> +typelib_TypeClass eReturnClass = pReturnTypeRef ?
> pReturnTypeRef->eTypeClass : typelib_TypeClass_VOID;
> +switch (eReturnClass)
> +{
> case typelib_TypeClass_VOID:
> exec = privateSnippetExecutorVoid;
> break;
> @@ -381,13 +405,24 @@ unsigned char * codeSnippet(
> case typelib_TypeClass_DOUBLE:
> exec = privateSnippetExecutorDouble;
> break;
> +case typelib_TypeClass_STRUCT:
> +case typelib_TypeClass_EXCEPTION:
> +#if defined (FREEBSD) || defined(NETBSD) || defined(OPENBSD) ||
> defined(MACOSX)
> +exec = returnsInRegister(pReturnTypeRef);
> +if (!exec)
> +{
> +exec = privateSnippetExecutorClass;
> +functionIndex |= 0x8000;
> +}
> +break;
> +#endif
> case typelib_TypeClass_STRING:
> case typelib_TypeClass_TYPE:
> case typelib_TypeClass_ANY:
> case typelib_TypeClass_SEQUENCE:
> -case typelib_TypeClass_STRUCT:
> case typelib_TypeClass_INTERFACE:
> exec = privateSnippetExecutorClass;
> +functionIndex |= 0x8000;
> break;
> default:
> exec = privateSnippetExecutorGeneral;
> @@ -455,7 +490,7 @@ unsigned char *
> bridges::cpp_uno::shared::VtableFactory::addLocalFunctions(
> code = codeSnippet(
> code, writetoexecdiff, functionOffset++, vtableOffset,
> reinterpret_cast< typelib_InterfaceAttributeTypeDescription
> * >(
> -member)->pAttributeTypeRef->eTypeClass);
> +member)->pAttributeTypeRef);
> // Setter:
> if (!reinterpret_cast<
> typelib_InterfaceAttributeTypeDescription * >(
> @@ -464,7 +499,7 @@ unsigned char *
> bridges::cpp_uno::shared::VtableFactory::addLocalFunction
[Libreoffice] [Bug 31865] [Task]: LibreOffice 3.3 release blockers / stoppers
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31865 Petr Mladek changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||32185 --- Comment #28 from Petr Mladek 2010-12-08 09:46:02 PST --- Nominating bug #32185. The libreoffice string translations were not used in the Windows build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] fighting with debug macros...
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote: > include /ure/sal/inc/osl/diagnose.h in file, and use only OSL_Debug > macros loosing all messages? Is it possible to add an additional > OSL_ASSERT(condition, message) macro? Or not wanted? We already have OSL_ENSURE() for that purpose. AFAIK these macros are disabled in non-debug builds as evaluating the expression passed to the macro takes time, and thus not wanted in builds used by users. pgprGjTEreP3f.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi Kevin, *, On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: > > Would this be a suitable reason to offer the download as a torrent? Torrents have been available from the very beginning (and still are available of course). But unfortunately you're not always allowed or able to download using bittorrent. So while it is good for flaky connections, recovers very well from interruptions, it is not a solution for the problem. ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Le 2010-12-08 10:38, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi Marc, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:10 -0500, Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-12-08 04:20, Michael Meeks a écrit : Right - a properly formed bug report for this in the bug tracker with details of language etc. would be much appreciated. .. I put this on the user list recently and here is the response I got from others: Sure ! so this looks like a generic Linux packaging issue; I forget what we are doing wrt. dictionaries there - clearly the vast majority of users get their LibreOffice from their official vendor. Perhaps we just fell-foul of some system-hunspell type configure option that changed. Should there still be a bug report on this? I hope this could be fixed somehow. IMO, LibreOffice should have a spellcheck dictionary at installation point. Or at the very least, be able to install dictionaries easily. Of course ! :-) please file on freedesktop, and propose a release blocker. Thanks, Michael. Thanks for the help Michael. File under: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32235 Hoping for a fix. And thanks to the dev team for the help again. Marc Marketing Team Member Drupal Website Dev. Team Member -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Title: Escritorio Virtual Scinergy Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1 Mensagem Remetente: Olivier Hallot Mensagem: Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Olivier Hallot> wrote:> > While we are here, I am happy to know we will one day remove our LO easter> > eggs.> > Are 'we' ?Aren't we cleaning bloatware, offloading useless code, improving security,gaining code manageability?> > >> > No matter how inocuous they are (and they are), it is too often a source of> > noise in enterprise environments.> > Seriously ? What kind of noise ? (I hate to imagine the kind of work> environment where the mere existence of such eggs would be cause for> any concern, or even - for that matter - cause for any attention at> all... at least nothing above the casual discussion about last night> sport's game)The no ise I had to fight in a 120.000 desktop deployment I am managing, by theIT security dept who almost made me write under oath that these stupidities arenot a security threat. Sorry, but I had pretty tought times dealing with that to have fun with. It isnot. OOo and LO are the underdogs in a (any) migration situation and easter eggsis another ammo for those who want to go back to Microsoft Office. I ratherprefer not to give'em that sweet taste.No matter how good or fun is your easter-egg, it puts you a label of lack ofseriousness when it comes to address the enterprise needs or code qualityreputation. Olivier(who is voicing the enterprise needs and concerns)> > Norbert> > >> > Just an entry in our to-do list.> >> >> > Em 08-12-2010 07:20, Michael Meeks escreveu:> >> > One way (but not the only way) of doing this is of course to> >>> reduce unnecessary bloat.> >>> >> We have a lot of bloat. We hate it. Removing it takes time. We are> >> investing resources in doing that. Please be patient.> >>> > --> > Olivier Hallot> > Steering Commitee> > The Document Foundation> > ___> > LibreOffice mailing list> > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice> >> -- Olivier HallotThe Document Foundation Escritorio Virtual Scinergy Scinergy Consulting Ltda. Tel/Fax +55-21-2224-3224 Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil http://www.scinergy.com.br © 2000-2005 SKYRIX Software AG ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Is that the final bug tracker? Does it include all open bugs reported for Openoffice as well? Otherwise I could just be reporting a bug for LO which is already known for OOo... Unless that is the idea? In any case I assumed from previous discussions on this mailing list that a simple validation would be enough to report bugs not necessarily forcing people to have to create yet another account and logging in... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Comments-on-RC1-tp2028874p2052263.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Different x86 ABI on BSDs and MaxOSX
So, checking this out on Robert's OpenBSD box and digging into MacOSX
land it appears that Linux has different x86 struct returning rules than
MacOSX and OpenBSD and I therefore assume all BSD derived OSes on x86
follow the same rules, especially as Robert says that FreeBSD have just
hacked out the test in their platform builds.
So attached is my proposed change that would allow the testtools tests
to run correctly during the build without being hacked out or disabled,
which is rather important because if those tests fail it implies that
the final LibreOffice has busted UNO and will fail in strange and
wonderful ways.
Apparently works fine on Linux x86 (though I typically build on x86_64).
If this works for you guys, I'd then like to see if we could just use
the same gcc3_linux_intel bridge for MacOSX as the next step.
C.
diff --git a/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx b/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
index 0e804ed..24818e6 100644
--- a/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
+++ b/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_linux_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void cpp2uno_call(
if (pReturnTypeDescr)
{
-if (bridges::cpp_uno::shared::isSimpleType( pReturnTypeDescr ))
+if (x86::isSimpleReturnType( pReturnTypeDescr ))
{
pUnoReturn = pReturnValue; // direct way for simple types
}
@@ -359,15 +359,39 @@ extern "C" typedef void (*PrivateSnippetExecutor)();
int const codeSnippetSize = 16;
+#if defined (FREEBSD) || defined(NETBSD) || defined(OPENBSD) || defined(MACOSX)
+namespace
+{
+PrivateSnippetExecutor returnsInRegister(typelib_TypeDescriptionReference * pReturnTypeRef)
+{
+//These archs apparently are returning small structs in registers, while Linux
+//doesn't
+PrivateSnippetExecutor exec=NULL;
+
+typelib_TypeDescription * pReturnTypeDescr = 0;
+TYPELIB_DANGER_GET( &pReturnTypeDescr, pReturnTypeRef );
+const bool bSimpleReturnStruct = x86::isSimpleReturnType(pReturnTypeDescr);
+const sal_Int32 nRetSize = pReturnTypeDescr->nSize;
+TYPELIB_DANGER_RELEASE( pReturnTypeDescr );
+if (bSimpleReturnStruct)
+{
+exec = privateSnippetExecutorGeneral; // fills eax
+if (nRetSize > 4)
+exec = privateSnippetExecutorHyper; // fills eax/edx
+}
+return exec;
+}
+}
+#endif
+
unsigned char * codeSnippet(
unsigned char * code, sal_PtrDiff writetoexecdiff, sal_Int32 functionIndex, sal_Int32 vtableOffset,
-typelib_TypeClass returnTypeClass)
+typelib_TypeDescriptionReference * pReturnTypeRef)
{
-if (!bridges::cpp_uno::shared::isSimpleType(returnTypeClass)) {
-functionIndex |= 0x8000;
-}
PrivateSnippetExecutor exec;
-switch (returnTypeClass) {
+typelib_TypeClass eReturnClass = pReturnTypeRef ? pReturnTypeRef->eTypeClass : typelib_TypeClass_VOID;
+switch (eReturnClass)
+{
case typelib_TypeClass_VOID:
exec = privateSnippetExecutorVoid;
break;
@@ -381,13 +405,24 @@ unsigned char * codeSnippet(
case typelib_TypeClass_DOUBLE:
exec = privateSnippetExecutorDouble;
break;
+case typelib_TypeClass_STRUCT:
+case typelib_TypeClass_EXCEPTION:
+#if defined (FREEBSD) || defined(NETBSD) || defined(OPENBSD) || defined(MACOSX)
+exec = returnsInRegister(pReturnTypeRef);
+if (!exec)
+{
+exec = privateSnippetExecutorClass;
+functionIndex |= 0x8000;
+}
+break;
+#endif
case typelib_TypeClass_STRING:
case typelib_TypeClass_TYPE:
case typelib_TypeClass_ANY:
case typelib_TypeClass_SEQUENCE:
-case typelib_TypeClass_STRUCT:
case typelib_TypeClass_INTERFACE:
exec = privateSnippetExecutorClass;
+functionIndex |= 0x8000;
break;
default:
exec = privateSnippetExecutorGeneral;
@@ -455,7 +490,7 @@ unsigned char * bridges::cpp_uno::shared::VtableFactory::addLocalFunctions(
code = codeSnippet(
code, writetoexecdiff, functionOffset++, vtableOffset,
reinterpret_cast< typelib_InterfaceAttributeTypeDescription * >(
-member)->pAttributeTypeRef->eTypeClass);
+member)->pAttributeTypeRef);
// Setter:
if (!reinterpret_cast<
typelib_InterfaceAttributeTypeDescription * >(
@@ -464,7 +499,7 @@ unsigned char * bridges::cpp_uno::shared::VtableFactory::addLocalFunctions(
(s++)->fn = code + writetoexecdiff;
code = codeSnippet(
code, writetoexecdiff, functionOffset++, vtableOffset,
-typelib_TypeClass_VOID);
+NULL);
}
break;
@@ -473,7 +508,7 @@ unsigned char * bridges::cpp_uno::shared::VtableFactory::addLocalFunctions(
code = c
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
At 11:04am -0500 Wed, 08 Dec 2010, Plino wrote: I'm willing to report the bugs I find when a proper bug tracker is set up. Do you mean something other than what is currently available through bugs.freedesktop.org? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&product=LibreOffice Regards, Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
Title: Escritorio Virtual Scinergy Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1 Mensagem Remetente: Olivier Hallot Mensagem: michael.me...@novell.com wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:56 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:> > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:51 -0200, Olivier Hallot wrote:> > > While we are here, I am happy to know we will one day remove our LO > > > easter eggs.> > > > Kill-joy.> > :-) agreed. The main problem, that I've seen with "easter eggs" is that> they have come to mean "security bugs" or "back doors" or "trojan> horses" in the literature. Perhaps we need to call them "embedded> interactivity extensions" which might be less frightning ;-)Exactly. No better wording for an enterprise IT security dept. POV. However theydon't have that sense humour at all. :-)> > Presumably perhaps teachers are unhappy to find their kids playing> space-invade rs instead of using calc - but then again, the embedded> games were -so- bad, I can't imagine anyone getting that addicted :-)> > Anyhow, as you say they are sadly gone I think,So bad that we should get rid of it. > > Olivier - what is the real problem with them out of interest ?Take this: "the other proprietary suite" already cleaned it. Plus, LibreOfficecan say "we cleaned our code, we are in good shape for the enterprise. Howabout OOo?"...Kind regards,-- Olivier HallotThe Document Foundation Escritorio Virtual Scinergy Scinergy Consulting Ltda. Tel/Fax +55-21-2224-3224 Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil http://www.scinergy.com.br © 2000-2005 SKYRIX Software AG ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [LibreOffice] [Patch] Fix for i#108228: Bool has negative sign when used in Writer formula expression
Hi Mattias/Michael On 08/12/10 11:20, Michael Meeks wrote: Having said that, this really doesn't seem ideal. I wonder what the compatibility impact of changing it would be [ a chestnut for Noel to consider I suspect ]. From the basic point of view as Mattias says ( and afaics ) this doesn't change the core basic behaviour at all, the change affects writer formula processing. Aside from the seemingly weird SbxValue/SbxValues Put/ImplPUT inconsistencies I think basic's boolean handling is afaik working ( e.g. Boolean is always -1 ) and yes this is aping VBA. If that isn't the case I'd be really interested in seeing an example where it doesn't work ( if those sort of bugs exist they need reporting and fixing ) For this patch I am not familiar with the writer bits involved, so I am not sure if there would be some side-affects. Personally I'd like to understand why the "explict check in the output" doesn't get applied in this case, I'll at least try and see where this is done to see if I can see any obvious risks. If I don't see anything ( or nobody else objects ) I guess we can shove this into master, I'll look a little more at this later. Thanks again for looking though, nice work !! Noel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
>Wait - you also complained about RC1's size ? and then again here with >a link ? :-) and Charles told you're we're working on fixing it, which >is what we are doing ... No. LO is NOT working on it. This has been discussed on other topics since late Nov (Beta1 or 2) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-LibreOffice-td1954148i60.html#a1969084 But now Sophie Gautier says exactly the same thing and everybody listens, but the reasoning is that "now is not a good time because we are already at RC1" >Just so you know - developer motivation is nearly exactly > -inversely- >proportional to griping :-) Now, it would be great if you could jump in >and help out fix up the packaging - do you have a Windows machine you >can get a build going on ? I have collaborated (and still do) on several open source projects. I know that. But sometimes provocation is the only way to get noticed and answered to... I do have a Windows machine and I have been testing the builds. I don't know how to code. My contribution is helping others on the Users forum. And I'm willing to report the bugs I find when a proper bug tracker is set up. I'm not a leecher or a troll. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Comments-on-RC1-tp2028874p2040567.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 31865] [Task]: LibreOffice 3.3 release blockers / stoppers
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31865 Bug 31865 depends on bug 31585, which changed state. Bug 31585 Summary: Writer crashes on mail merge https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31585 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Le 2010-12-08 04:20, Michael Meeks a écrit : On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:33 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: Marc you mentioned a lack of a spell checker. what bout on any OS using another dictionary like Aspell or something of the sort? Right - a properly formed bug report for this in the bug tracker with details of language etc. would be much appreciated. Thanks, Michael. Hi Michael: I put this on the user list recently and here is the response I got from others: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-RC1-and-language-packs-on-Linux-Mandriva-2010-1-td2028000.html Should there still be a bug report on this? I hope this could be fixed somehow. IMO, LibreOffice should have a spellcheck dictionary at installation point. Or at the very least, be able to install dictionaries easily. Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] README translation for 3.3
Hi there, I need some help with figuring out how the readme is built during the build process. As I've noticed, the master copy of the readme has been updated; lots of new paragraphs added and some removed. The problem is that, where the paragraphs were removed I see some bogus paragraphs from another locale creeping in. I've checked en-US and ja locales, but I'm pretty sure this is the case for all locales. I've attached the text version of README for en-US locale. Look under the User Support section to find those bogus paragraphs. Also note that this is relevant for the 3.3 branch. So, I'm trying to figure out how the final readme files are getting built, so that I can remove those bogus paragraphs and provide hooks for translation for the new paragraphs. But so far I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering how this all ties together. If anyone has any pointers, I would appreciate it. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc README_en-US.bz2 Description: application/bzip ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi there, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 06:53 -0800, plino wrote: > >On the other hand - now is not a wonderful time to be discovering > >this :-) The outline of what was suggested wrt. multi-language installs > >has been on the table for several months, and was there in Beta3; RC1 is > >not an ideal time to notice these issues. > > It is interesting to notice that I was basically told to shut up when I > warned about... Wait - you also complained about RC1's size ? and then again here with a link ? :-) and Charles told you're we're working on fixing it, which is what we are doing ... Just so you know - developer motivation is nearly exactly -inversely- proportional to griping :-) Now, it would be great if you could jump in and help out fix up the packaging - do you have a Windows machine you can get a build going on ? ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi Marc, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:10 -0500, Marc Paré wrote: > Le 2010-12-08 04:20, Michael Meeks a écrit : > > Right - a properly formed bug report for this in the bug tracker with > > details of language etc. would be much appreciated. .. > I put this on the user list recently and here is the response I got from > others: Sure ! so this looks like a generic Linux packaging issue; I forget what we are doing wrt. dictionaries there - clearly the vast majority of users get their LibreOffice from their official vendor. Perhaps we just fell-foul of some system-hunspell type configure option that changed. > Should there still be a bug report on this? I hope this could be fixed > somehow. IMO, LibreOffice should have a spellcheck dictionary at > installation point. Or at the very least, be able to install > dictionaries easily. Of course ! :-) please file on freedesktop, and propose a release blocker. Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
At 4:20am -0500 Wed, 08 Dec 2010, Michael Meeks wrote: On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:04 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote: In countries where power supplies are intermittent, or irregular, it matters a great deal. If your phone or electricity lines crap out part way through the download, and you were on a pay-per-minute connection, what would you do ? Risk downloading it, or go and obtain a pirated copy of some other more freely available software suite ? Would you download a copy of that proprietary suite instead ? or would you get it on CD ? Ultimately, I'd love to see some Ubuntu style ship-it service to provide CDs to serve the 3rd world cheaply. As/when we have a foundation and funding in place that seems like an obvious use of funds. Would this be a suitable reason to offer the download as a torrent? Torrents recover well from disconnections, mis-passed bites, and other random download errors. It still doesn't solve the bloat issue, but at least responds to both more distributed use of bandwidth and resiliency for long-running downloads. We'd have to advertise it, of course, since the use of torrents is not, I think, 'mainstream' (per se). In the long run, I'd prefer to have a torrent offering anyway. Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Regarding this comment >On the other hand - now is not a wonderful time to be discovering >this :-) The outline of what was suggested wrt. multi-language installs >has been on the table for several months, and was there in Beta3; RC1 is >not an ideal time to notice these issues. It is interesting to notice that I was basically told to shut up when I warned about... http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Is-TDF-doing-the-EXACT-same-mistakes-as-OOo-tp2024585p2024585.html -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Comments-on-RC1-tp2028874p2040145.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 11:09 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > the embedded > games were -so- bad, I can't imagine anyone getting that addicted :-) Not unless we embedd Tetris in Calc Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Olivier Hallot wrote: > While we are here, I am happy to know we will one day remove our LO easter > eggs. Are 'we' ? > > No matter how inocuous they are (and they are), it is too often a source of > noise in enterprise environments. Seriously ? What kind of noise ? (I hate to imagine the kind of work environment where the mere existence of such eggs would be cause for any concern, or even - for that matter - cause for any attention at all... at least nothing above the casual discussion about last night sport's game) Norbert > > Just an entry in our to-do list. > > > Em 08-12-2010 07:20, Michael Meeks escreveu: >>> >>> One way (but not the only way) of doing this is of course to >>> reduce unnecessary bloat. >> >> We have a lot of bloat. We hate it. Removing it takes time. We are >> investing resources in doing that. Please be patient. >> > -- > Olivier Hallot > Steering Commitee > The Document Foundation > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] fighting with debug macros...
Hello,
still trying to learn a bit the code. Compiling without DEBUG on gives
some new warnings:- ) This lead me to look at some code construct. Here
is in pseudo-code a typical construct I am crossing:
var y = ;
var x = ;
code
if ( y > MAXVALUE)
{
ASSERT(x, "out of range"); // only use of var x is here
} // there is no else statement
code
Looking at easy hacks, I also saw that ASSERT is deprecated. I have
looked at the OSL macros, but did not found an equivalent of
ASSERT(condition, message) (defined in
filters/binfilter/inc/bf_sw/errhdl.hxx
But further, this is not very useful for the end-user, since LibO is
shipped without debug-level on. (right? )
So I was thinking:
* either a macro exists to do a "hello user, I will crash. Thanks to
send this report", that is added within the if statement. ??
* or to change the code to something like:
var y = ...;
#if OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > 0
var x = ...; /* if this is not possible to insert x below, and the
initialization of x does not change any state */
#endif
code
#if OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > 0
if ( y > MAXVALUE)
{
ASSERT(x, "txt"); // only use of var x is here
} // there is no else statement
#endif
code
to avoid shipping unneeded code to end-user. This will also make code
execution more efficient, avoiding dummy branches.
By the way:
what is the right way to achieve the goal of the easy hack : align
ASSERT (& friends) macro foo ?
include /ure/sal/inc/osl/diagnose.h in file, and use only OSL_Debug
macros loosing all messages? Is it possible to add an additional
OSL_ASSERT(condition, message) macro? Or not wanted?
Thanks for your inputs.
regards
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 31865] [Task]: LibreOffice 3.3 release blockers / stoppers
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31865 Bug 31865 depends on bug 32196, which changed state. Bug 32196 Summary: Data Form shows corrupted string. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32196 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Hi Muthu, On 2010-12-08 at 19:40 +0530, Muthu Subramanian K wrote: > I guess we should tie the 'help-welcome' (the page that opens when the > user clicks Help->Help from menu) pages to the wiki/Main_Page or > probably create a LibreOffice welcome help page (to point to the Writer, > Calc, and other applications help-start pages)... > I too felt it odd for it not to have it. Just my thought... We have these, eg. when you hit F1 in a freshly opened Writer, you get to: http://help.libreoffice.org/Swriter/start Actually - if anyone volunteers to improve the Main_Page (eg. collect links to swriter/start, scalc/start, ...), I'll be happy to create the account for him to do that; or I can cut and paste any improvements sent to this thread directly as an wiki update. Though - as I already explained, first it is necessary to fine-tune the conversion tooling, the things like the exact wording of the Main_Page can be fixed as soon as I feel confident with the result of the conversion so that I can open it for everyone to edit. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [RESOLVED] Patch for Bug 32209 awaiting peer-review
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:10 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 23:24 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > I have another patch awaiting peer-review, to go into the 3.3 branch. > > > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32209 > > > > This one makes one hard-coded English string (ouch) localizable. It's a > > simple change. > > Yeah, trivial. Can only improve matters. Thanks much. Pushed. Case closed. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Kendy, I guess we should tie the 'help-welcome' (the page that opens when the user clicks Help->Help from menu) pages to the wiki/Main_Page or probably create a LibreOffice welcome help page (to point to the Writer, Calc, and other applications help-start pages)... I too felt it odd for it not to have it. Just my thought... Thanks! Muthu Subramanian On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 14:48 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Hi Miklos, > > On 2010-12-07 at 22:21 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > > > > http://help.libreoffice.org is now up and running. As explained above, > > > it is not open for public editing yet. > > > > I must miss something really trivial, but I do not see where to start > > reading. :) The only way to find pages from the main page is to use the > > Random page or Recent changes feature. > > > > Did I miss the point? :) > > You did ;-) The point is not to browse the help per se (even though it > can of course evolve into that), but the real usage is to hit F1 in > LibreOffice without a help installed, and you'll get _directly_ to the > right page - eg. if you navigate by keys in the File menu to 'Save > As...', and hit F1' you'll get directly to > > http://help.libreoffice.org/Swriter/.uno:SaveAs > > :-) > > Similarly for the checkboxes/input fields/anything in the dialogs, or > wherever you can hit F1 and get some help. > > Regards, > Kendy > > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 14:40 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > On 2010-12-07 at 11:05 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > > > > http://help.libreoffice.org is now up and running. > > > > > > Can someone post the IP address of that site? For me, that leads to the > > > old go-ooo source code documentation by doxygen. It could be a DNS > > > caching issue if we are trying to change the sub-domain routing. > > > > Ah, nevermind. The real main page is > > > > http://help.libreoffice.org/Main_Page. > > How comes it is not redirected? Here it works just fine, ie. when I > type help.libreoffice.org in the browser, I get the Main_Page. I am > confused :-) - ideas appreciated. Browser cache is the answer. Ctrl-R to the rescue. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Hi Miklos, On 2010-12-07 at 22:21 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > > http://help.libreoffice.org is now up and running. As explained above, > > it is not open for public editing yet. > > I must miss something really trivial, but I do not see where to start > reading. :) The only way to find pages from the main page is to use the > Random page or Recent changes feature. > > Did I miss the point? :) You did ;-) The point is not to browse the help per se (even though it can of course evolve into that), but the real usage is to hit F1 in LibreOffice without a help installed, and you'll get _directly_ to the right page - eg. if you navigate by keys in the File menu to 'Save As...', and hit F1' you'll get directly to http://help.libreoffice.org/Swriter/.uno:SaveAs :-) Similarly for the checkboxes/input fields/anything in the dialogs, or wherever you can hit F1 and get some help. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Hi Kohei, On 2010-12-07 at 11:05 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > > http://help.libreoffice.org is now up and running. > > > > Can someone post the IP address of that site? For me, that leads to the > > old go-ooo source code documentation by doxygen. It could be a DNS > > caching issue if we are trying to change the sub-domain routing. > > Ah, nevermind. The real main page is > > http://help.libreoffice.org/Main_Page. How comes it is not redirected? Here it works just fine, ie. when I type help.libreoffice.org in the browser, I get the Main_Page. I am confused :-) - ideas appreciated. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:05:16 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Is not sufficient afaik, writer uses opens___.ttf, too afaik. opens___.ttf is universally installed, independt of what configure options you use. Sebastian pgpGCv6hekX7Q.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:30:00 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > Not quibbling about the option naming here (--with vs --enable etc), do > > we really need to bundle those fonts by default? > IMHO: Yes. ... > But not the Graphite variants. And that matters in developer installs how? :-) Distros and platforms can always turn it on if they want it. I expect we'll have a LinuxLibreOffice distro profile soon again. And sensible distro hopefully recommend some graphite font packages. But even if we want to bundle Graphite fonts, why do I need 56 bundled font files, when all we need is 7 graphite ones and opensymbol? It is 20MB additional ballast to me. Anyway, if this is what people really want, I'll just use that switch locally. Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FOSDEM foo ...
Hi Suren, On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 17:55 +0530, surensp...@gmail.com wrote: > I have made my proposal now :) Hope its alright :) Thanks for the > encouraging words :D Looks lovely :-) Still missing talk proposals from others though: surely we have some brave people hereabouts that want to present their work ? Thanks ! Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:14:58PM +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:30:00PM +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > >> So please not disable it. If you want ship the opensymbol one with > >> math, and only leave the others in the fonts package, but keep them > > > > Is not sufficient afaik, writer uses opens___.ttf, too afaik. > > Ah, yes of course - all the bullets, etc. would be in one of the core > packages then. > > Or in that view easier: Only have the opensymbol font in the required > fonts package, and the rest in a fonts-optional one. Doing it this way > would have least impact on the packaging/installation. Although you'd > have one package with just one file included Yes. We do that since ages in Debian: http://packages.debian.org/ttf-opensymbol Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
Hi Rene, *; On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:30:00PM +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: >> So please not disable it. If you want ship the opensymbol one with >> math, and only leave the others in the fonts package, but keep them > > Is not sufficient afaik, writer uses opens___.ttf, too afaik. Ah, yes of course - all the bullets, etc. would be in one of the core packages then. Or in that view easier: Only have the opensymbol font in the required fonts package, and the rest in a fonts-optional one. Doing it this way would have least impact on the packaging/installation. Although you'd have one package with just one file included ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
Hi, On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:30:00PM +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > So please not disable it. If you want ship the opensymbol one with > math, and only leave the others in the fonts package, but keep them Is not sufficient afaik, writer uses opens___.ttf, too afaik. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] binfilter and features...
Hi, > There is alright, a phonecon typically once a week or so. maybe we can > put this topic on the agenda would be great > and you could dial in if its at a suitable time. doing this during free time, I may really depend if the possibility arise or not. But basically, we could think of a kind of general rule according to the following points: Do we want to support the file format X ? if yes Is the product that produce this file format as default / main / native file format out of support ? if yes Is this product out of support since more than X (3??) years? if yes ==> LibO supports this file format as read only. In case of changes, the user has to choose another file format, supported for writing. Note: for me, for an average user, having to install a plug-in is not an option. At least as I see even in my west-european neighborhood, despite well educated (university-level!) people, but not computer freaks, using it as a mere tools. I always wonder as people are using computer in a way much more nearer of using hammers than cars Of course, if the product is still on support, this is another story, since there other criteria should determine if this is read or read-write. But this kind of rule could help to shrink down in a regular manner the LibO code, having a basis for suppressing some part of the code. I proposed 3 years, this in average, this is the renewal time for PC's. Actually, for basic users, this is somewhat longer (about 5 years), but as you have seen (or not) for docx-format, after 3 years of the introduction of the new format, people not able to read the new format are really in trouble. This also "helps" or forces the end-user to migrate to the new format / up to date format, without loosing access to its archive. This is a good help for LibO, I think, avoiding having X former file-format existing around. Other views, ideas? regards ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] HC2 l10n process
Hi Kendy, all, So, some inputs from the localizer point of view concerning the help files. Currently, it's not available else than on line and in English, which is very problematic, and more for some of us who received support to make it available, plus it let think that it is not translated at all. So, as Martin said on the l10n list, it's currently a stopper for localized builds if the help is not available aside the product and in its language. Out of this, if we further your effort to put it on the wiki, what the localizer need is: - an offline way to work on it - the ability to grep the strings (we frequently make changes in UI that we need to report in the several places where the word appears in the help files) - the ability to add comments to the segments - the ability to make proposal only and accept those proposal, - the ability to use automated checks, such as end punctuation, start caps, sentence count, extra blanks, etc. - of course the use of terminology file to ensure that UI strings are the same in HC2. This is the most important actions I see, may be others may have additional requests. If you make sure that those needs are met, we will be able to work on it and provide the same level of quality we are currently providing for our localization. Kind regards Sophie ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
Hi Sebastian, *; On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > > Not quibbling about the option naming here (--with vs --enable etc), do > we really need to bundle those fonts by default? IMHO: Yes. > (DejaVu, Libertine, and > Gentium are already quite common on Linux boxes at least, But not the Graphite variants. So please not disable it. If you want ship the opensymbol one with math, and only leave the others in the fonts package, but keep them enabled by default. Whether the user then installs them or not is another question. ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
> Sounds good to me; go for it ! :-) OK to push this patch? USer visible changes are: Rename --with-fonts to --enable-fonts and --enable-extra-font to --enable-extra-fonts to make them consistent. Improve help texts. Make it so that --enable-extra-fonts implies --enable-fonts. Both options are turned off by default, distros that want fonts bundled need to set that in their distro conf. Optinions? opens___.ttf will still be bundled in any case >From f58b6d6d322d3dbb035117644fcdf7ae3093f97a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sebastian Spaeth Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:21:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Configure --enable-fonts --enable-extra-fonts both disabled by def. Rename --with-fonts to --enable-fonts and --enable-extra-font to --enable-extra fonts to make them consistent. Both options are turned off by default, distros that want fonts bundled need to set that in their distro conf. Make it so that --enable-extra-fonts implies --enable-fonts. Move the options and checks to be next to each other in configure.in Signed-off-by: Sebastian Spaeth --- configure.in | 57 ++--- 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.in b/configure.in index 0e60fdd..bc9df97 100644 --- a/configure.in +++ b/configure.in @@ -482,10 +482,18 @@ AC_ARG_ENABLE(extra-sample, [Add extra sample content.]), ,) -AC_ARG_ENABLE(extra-font, -AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-extra-font], - [Add extra font content.]), -,) +AC_ARG_ENABLE(fonts, +AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-fonts], +[Include third-party fonts (DejaVu, Liberation, Gentium, + Libertine G and Linux Biolinum G) bundled with the product. + Enable this if you compile for a platform that does not contain + a sensible set of system fonts already.]), +) + +AC_ARG_ENABLE(extra-fonts, +AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-extra-fonts], + [Bundle even more fonts with the product. (implies --enable-fonts)]), +) dnl -- Deprecated since 2010-11-05 -- @@ -604,13 +612,6 @@ AC_ARG_WITH(extension-integration, [It will integrate the builded extensions to the installer of the product.]), ,) -AC_ARG_WITH(fonts, -AS_HELP_STRING([--without-fonts], -[LibO includes some third-party fonts to provide a reliable basis for - help content, templates, samples, etc. When these fonts are already - known to be available on the system then you should use this option.]), -,) - AC_ARG_WITH(ppds, AS_HELP_STRING([--without-ppds], [Removes Postscript Printer definition files from LibreOffice @@ -7496,7 +7497,7 @@ dnl === dnl Test whether to include fonts dnl === AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to include third-party fonts]) -if test "$with_fonts" != "no" ; then +if test "x$enable_fonts" = "xyes" -o "x$enable_extra_fonts" = "xyes"; then AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) WITH_FONTS=YES BUILD_TYPE="$BUILD_TYPE MORE_FONTS" @@ -7508,6 +7509,22 @@ fi AC_SUBST(WITH_FONTS) dnl === +dnl Test whether to include extra fonts +dnl === +AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to include additional fonts]) +if test "x$enable_extra_fonts" = "xyes" ; then + AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) + WITH_EXTRA_FONT=YES + BUILD_TYPE="$BUILD_TYPE EXTRA_FONT" + SCPDEFS="$SCPDEFS -DWITH_EXTRA_FONT" +else + AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) + WITH_EXTRA_FONT=NO +fi +AC_SUBST(WITH_EXTRA_FONT) +AC_SUBST(SCPDEFS) + +dnl === dnl Test whether to include ppds dnl === AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to include PPDs]) @@ -7579,22 +7596,8 @@ else fi AC_SUBST(WITH_EXTRA_SAMPLE) -dnl === -dnl Test whether to include extra fonts -dnl === -AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to include extra fonts]) -if test "z$enable_extra_font" = "z" -o "z$enable_extra_font" = "zno" ; then - AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) - WITH_EXTRA_FONT=NO -else - AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) - WITH_EXTRA_FONT=YES - BUILD_TYPE="$BUILD_TYPE EXTRA_FONT" - SCPDEFS="$SCPDEFS -DWITH_EXTRA_FONT" -fi -AC_SUBST(WITH_EXTRA_FONT) -AC_SUBST(SCPDEFS) + if test "$_os" = "WINNT"; then AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to enable ActiveX embedding of LibO components]) -- 1.7.1 Sebastian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [LibreOffice] [Patch] Fix for i#108228: Bool has negative sign when used in Writer formula expression
Hi Mattias,
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 21:35 +1100, Mattias Johnsson wrote:
> Fix for http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=108228.
Wow - this is an excellent analysis :-) though I'm hoping someone else
will review the patch.
> // The numeric values of TRUE and FALSE
> enum SbxBOOL { SbxFALSE = 0, SbxTRUE = -1 };
>
> Bizarre, although I have very vague memories of Visual Basic defining
> -1 to be true. Is that the reason ?
Possibly this is down to someone using a signed single bit field
somewhere in the deep past ;-)
typedef struct {
int foo : 1;
} Foo;
'foo' can only be either 0 or -1 - you get just a sign bit.
Having said that, this really doesn't seem ideal. I wonder what the
compatibility impact of changing it would be [ a chestnut for Noel to
consider I suspect ].
Anyhow - great work ! :-)
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:56 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:51 -0200, Olivier Hallot wrote: > > While we are here, I am happy to know we will one day remove our LO > > easter eggs. > > Kill-joy. :-) agreed. The main problem, that I've seen with "easter eggs" is that they have come to mean "security bugs" or "back doors" or "trojan horses" in the literature. Perhaps we need to call them "embedded interactivity extensions" which might be less frightning ;-) Presumably perhaps teachers are unhappy to find their kids playing space-invaders instead of using calc - but then again, the embedded games were -so- bad, I can't imagine anyone getting that addicted :-) Anyhow, as you say they are sadly gone I think, Olivier - what is the real problem with them out of interest ? Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:51 -0200, Olivier Hallot wrote: > While we are here, I am happy to know we will one day remove our LO > easter eggs. Kill-joy. > No matter how inocuous they are (and they are), it is too often a source > of noise in enterprise environments. I think the fun ones are already gone, no ? Which makes me a little sad actually. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:53 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > That would be 20MB saved on each make dev-install and I wouldnt run > danger to pick up the wrong version of the DejaVu fonts. On this final point, we have this bug where if the old opensymbol font is installed in the Linux system-wide font dir, then we favour that over our built-in one. We're not taking into account the version numbers of fonts when we build our list of fonts. There's a bug somewhere for this that I haven't the time to fix for 3.3 really, but it something we should do, compare font versions and pick the highest. That would resolve that niggle about picking the wrong version of a fond where two are available, bundled and non-bundled typically. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] BOOL conflict
Hi Thomas, On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:26 +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote: > I'm building with external iodbc (3.52.7) and it fails with: > /usr/pkg/include/iodbcunix.h:136: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef int > BOOL' > .../libreoffice/solver/330/unxbsdx3.pro/inc/tools/solar.h:58: error: 'BOOL' > has a previous declaration as 'typedef sal_Bool BOOL' Urk; another reason not to use BOOL I guess :-) What does your iodbcunix.h include ? I guess we might need to do some hideous #define magic for the iodbcunix.h headers here: did you get a solution ? I might be tempted to do: #define BOOL IODBC_BOOL #include #undef BOOL or somesuch, if this is the only conflict. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
Hi Sebastian, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:53 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > By default, we bundle 20MB of TTF fonts that I mostly have installed as > system fonts already. Ah - true. > --without-fonts (--with-fonts is the default) and > --enable-extra-font (not enabled by default, putting more .ttfs on your > disk). I suggest we switch the developer defaults to not install these, any chance of a tested patch [ the best way is to look at config.status and re-run configure with the different options several times ]. > I hear that we most certainly need opens___.ttf in any case, so we > should bundle that universally, and make --without-fonts the default > then. Win32 distros can turn it on in their distro config if they want. Right. > That would be 20MB saved on each make dev-install and I wouldnt run > danger to pick up the wrong version of the DejaVu fonts. Sounds good to me; go for it ! :-) Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [LibreOffice] [Patch] Fix for i#108228: Bool has negative sign when used in Writer formula expression
Fix for http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=108228.
The problem behaviour occurs because the boolean expression "true"
evaluates to -1 rather than +1 in formulas in Writer. So if, for
example, you create a table formula in Writer, (Table->Formula) and
enter something like 1+(2==2), it evaluates to 0 rather than 2. It
turns out the reason for this is buried in sbxdef.hxx, where we have
// The numeric values of TRUE and FALSE
enum SbxBOOL { SbxFALSE = 0, SbxTRUE = -1 };
Bizarre, although I have very vague memories of Visual Basic defining
-1 to be true. Is that the reason? If it is supposed to be -1, someone
didn't get the memo, because struct SbxValues in sbxvar.hxx defines a
field "UINT16 nUShort", i.e. an unsigned int, which appears to be
where bools are stored. This is borne out by the code in sbxvalue.cxx
which has
SbxValue::PutBool( BOOL b )
aRes.eType = SbxBOOL;
aRes.nUShort = sal::static_int_cast< UINT16 >(b ? SbxTRUE : SbxFALSE);
Put( aRes );
Weird - the cast changes the -1 to 65535. But wait! If we actually
look at the Put code, we have
SbxValue::Put( const SbxValues& rVal )
...
case SbxBOOL: ImpPutBool( &p->aData, rVal.nInteger ); break;
i.e. we're now back to considering ints rather than uints, and since
SbxValues is defined as a union, the value we've stuffed into it looks
like -1 again if we try to pull an integer out of it. A lot of the
code to do with bools in SbxValues looks like this - it can't make up
its mind if the bool is supposed to be uint or an int, there are casts
everywhere, and it's a miracle it works. Or occasionally doesn't work,
according to the bug.
Lest someone think this bug is correct behaviour, (2==2) currently
gives 1 as expected, not -1; there's an explicit check in the output
in this case to get around the SbxTRUE = -1 thing. Anyway, this patch
fixes the bug, while leaving the whole SbxTRUE = -1 infrastructure
intact. Presumably it should be applied to master rather than 3.3,
since it's hardly an RC blocker :-P
Code contributed under MPL 1.1 / GPLv3+ / LGPLv3+ licenses.
Cheers,
Mattias
From cacb952d14de82625a93373d82c541810f2c38c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mattias Johnsson
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:15:43 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix i#108228 : bool has negative sign when used in formula expression
---
sw/source/core/bastyp/calc.cxx |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sw/source/core/bastyp/calc.cxx b/sw/source/core/bastyp/calc.cxx
index 9f4b77c..a2a2a1f 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/bastyp/calc.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/bastyp/calc.cxx
@@ -1726,7 +1726,7 @@ double SwSbxValue::GetDouble() const
SwSbxValue& SwSbxValue::MakeDouble()
{
-if( SbxSTRING == GetType() )
+if( GetType() == SbxSTRING || GetType() == SbxBOOL )
PutDouble( GetDouble() );
return *this;
}
--
1.7.1
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Release tag convention
Norbert Thiebaud píše v Út 07. 12. 2010 v 11:22 -0600: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Hi, > > > > there is a proposal to use the tag "libreoffice-3.3.0.1" instead of > > "LIBREOFFICE_3_3_0_1" and mention it in the LibreOffice/About dialog as > > is. It is more clear and understandable. > > > > Would you mind if we do this change for LibO-3.3-rc2? > > If it is going to be user-visible (as in an About Box), why not avoid > abbreviations ? > that is: LibreOffice-3.3-rc2 This whole discussion started with the request to mention the exact git tag string in the about dialog. It helps developers to distinguish what exact sources were used to produce the buggy build. Unfortunately, we have two demands. The abbreviations "alpha", "beta", "rc", and "final" are better understandable for users. They are more intuitive when describing the stability and amount of passed testing. The numbers are needed for packagers because they help installer to decide what package is newer. Note that the package versions are compared alphanumerically, so 3.3rc1 > 3.3final > 3.3 IMHO, users know what they download and install. They usually check the about dialog only when they want to report a bug => I prefer to use the numbers everywhere and use the abbreviation only in the announce mails and maybe for tarballs with packages. Best Regards, Petr ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] RC1 / size redux ...
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:29:03 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > dat 24 Mb As I said, I built without language support, and still got an English AND a french thesaurus installed. The french one is 4.6MB of uncompressed text. I don't know french. Any chance to only install language files if we build language support for that language? At least the Chinese autocorrection file that I also got is tiny ;). Sebastian pgpx4JgzzEhHk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] libreoffice -quickstart
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 08:49 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:19:02AM +0100, Miguel (ON) wrote: > > I've noticed that a process is added at the startup when LibreOffice is > > installed. The process is .. > Yes, it is known and should be fixed in RC1: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-November/002987.html But of course, if it was turned on by the Beta install, it will still be turned on until you turn it off ;-) Please do check it out with a clean user account. Thanks for the report ! HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Easter eggs, was: Re: Comments on RC1
While we are here, I am happy to know we will one day remove our LO easter eggs. No matter how inocuous they are (and they are), it is too often a source of noise in enterprise environments. Just an entry in our to-do list. Em 08-12-2010 07:20, Michael Meeks escreveu: One way (but not the only way) of doing this is of course to reduce unnecessary bloat. We have a lot of bloat. We hate it. Removing it takes time. We are investing resources in doing that. Please be patient. -- Olivier Hallot Steering Commitee The Document Foundation ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
> In countries where power supplies are intermittent, or irregular, it > matters a great deal. OK, I will stop arguing then. --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1 spell checking
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:46 +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > What about mac and windows users? Is Hunspell available for them as well? > > This was about using spelling dictionaries that are already available on > the target platform. And Mac and Windows don't typically have hunspell > as their default system-wide/desktop-wide spelling infrastructure. > > Though I believe that the LibreOffice mac version can use the MacOSX > spelling infrastructure already. There definitely is a > lingucomponent/source/spellcheck/macosxspell module anyway which suggest > that. > > For windows I don't think there is an equivalent. To avoid confusion. I should point out that we of course *do* have a spelling solution on all platforms. Where we have spelling dictionary extensions with out built-in hunspell library to do spelling on all platforms. All I'm talking about here is being able to use additional fallback spelling solutions on platforms which provide (or sort of provide) a standardized spelling infrastructure. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Bundled fonts
By default, we bundle 20MB of TTF fonts that I mostly have installed as system fonts already. We have 2 badly documented configure options: --without-fonts (--with-fonts is the default) and --enable-extra-font (not enabled by default, putting more .ttfs on your disk). Not quibbling about the option naming here (--with vs --enable etc), do we really need to bundle those fonts by default? (DejaVu, Libertine, and Gentium are already quite common on Linux boxes at least, and packages can recommend the respective font packages). I hear that we most certainly need opens___.ttf in any case, so we should bundle that universally, and make --without-fonts the default then. Win32 distros can turn it on in their distro config if they want. That would be 20MB saved on each make dev-install and I wouldnt run danger to pick up the wrong version of the DejaVu fonts. Opinions? Sebastian pgp79U6t89dSM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] RC1 / size redux ...
Hi Marc, On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 13:36 -0500, Marc Paré wrote: > That does help in describing the situation. Was this also examined by > other devs? I am saying this as sometimes, other pair of eyes will see > other places/ways of reducing the size. This is why I post it to the list (FWIW). > Perhaps making this exercise part of the process before releasing a > major release would be a good idea? Thank you for your interest. All the best, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1 spell checking
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > What about mac and windows users? Is Hunspell available for them as well? This was about using spelling dictionaries that are already available on the target platform. And Mac and Windows don't typically have hunspell as their default system-wide/desktop-wide spelling infrastructure. Though I believe that the LibreOffice mac version can use the MacOSX spelling infrastructure already. There definitely is a lingucomponent/source/spellcheck/macosxspell module anyway which suggest that. For windows I don't think there is an equivalent. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1 spell checking
What about mac and windows users? Is Hunspell available for them as well? On 12/8/10 10:34 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:20 +, Michael Meeks wrote: On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:33 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: Marc you mentioned a lack of a spell checker. what bout on any OS using another dictionary like Aspell or something of the sort? Right - a properly formed bug report for this in the bug tracker with details of language etc. would be much appreciated. Using system spell checking dictionaries where available is probably orthogonal to the original problem (whatever exactly it was, it seems to not be reproducible right ?), but on this specific topic. LibreOffice uses hunspell and typically now hunspell dicts are available in fairly standard locations in linux distros. We have support to use system dictionaries, we should (for the devel version) tweak our defaults to enable these out-of-the-box under Linux, i.e. fallback in order of - user dictionary extensions - shared dictionary extensions - system dictionaries in /usr/share/hunspell - system dictionaries in /usr/share/myspell C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1 spell checking
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:20 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:33 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > Marc you mentioned a lack of a spell checker. what bout on any OS using > > another dictionary like Aspell or something of the sort? > > Right - a properly formed bug report for this in the bug tracker with > details of language etc. would be much appreciated. Using system spell checking dictionaries where available is probably orthogonal to the original problem (whatever exactly it was, it seems to not be reproducible right ?), but on this specific topic. LibreOffice uses hunspell and typically now hunspell dicts are available in fairly standard locations in linux distros. We have support to use system dictionaries, we should (for the devel version) tweak our defaults to enable these out-of-the-box under Linux, i.e. fallback in order of - user dictionary extensions - shared dictionary extensions - system dictionaries in /usr/share/hunspell - system dictionaries in /usr/share/myspell C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:33 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Marc you mentioned a lack of a spell checker. what bout on any OS using > another dictionary like Aspell or something of the sort? Right - a properly formed bug report for this in the bug tracker with details of language etc. would be much appreciated. Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi Alexander, On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:04 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > In countries where power supplies are intermittent, or irregular, it > matters a great deal. If your phone or electricity lines crap out part > way through the download, and you were on a pay-per-minute connection, > what would you do ? Risk downloading it, or go and obtain a pirated copy > of some other more freely available software suite ? Would you download a copy of that proprietary suite instead ? or would you get it on CD ? Ultimately, I'd love to see some Ubuntu style ship-it service to provide CDs to serve the 3rd world cheaply. As/when we have a foundation and funding in place that seems like an obvious use of funds. > One way (but not the only way) of doing this is of course to > reduce unnecessary bloat. We have a lot of bloat. We hate it. Removing it takes time. We are investing resources in doing that. Please be patient. On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 01:33 -0500, Marc Paré wrote: > I, for one, would not be upset if the release is put back if it means > delivering a better product. I don't believe that there will be much > public backlash either. Our product currently has -so- much scope for being better :-) that if we delay releasing everytime we find something that could be better we will simply never release :-) More complicated than this is the fact that we already have a better (smaller) product: which is the development branch - that is in quite a good state, and improving fast. So - by substantially delaying this release people end up not getting the improvements - and the end-user's goodness, time-of-use product gets worse. Nevertheless - the point about image size is well made, and I am working on reducing it as a priority; how far we get for this release remains to be seen, the more people helping, building on Windows etc. the better. Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [RESOLVED] Re: Patch review requested
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 00:46 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > Please someone review my patch at > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32133 > > which fixes the aforementioned bug for 3.3. The patch in comment 7 is > the one that needs reviewing. Just to note on the list that this is resolved now. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Patch for Bug 32209 awaiting peer-review
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 23:24 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > I have another patch awaiting peer-review, to go into the 3.3 branch. > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32209 > > This one makes one hard-coded English string (ouch) localizable. It's a > simple change. Yeah, trivial. Can only improve matters. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1
Hi Tor, Le 07/12/10 13:24, Tor Lillqvist a écrit : > Does it really matter a lot if downloading the LibreOffice installer takes > four or eight hours on some specific slow connection? Are people going to sit > by the computer staring at the download progress bar doing nothing else > during the time? In countries where power supplies are intermittent, or irregular, it matters a great deal. If your phone or electricity lines crap out part way through the download, and you were on a pay-per-minute connection, what would you do ? Risk downloading it, or go and obtain a pirated copy of some other more freely available software suite ? We still live in world that is largely underdeveloped in many places. One could of course choose to shut them out, which is a rather selfish attitude IMHO, or try and facilitate their access to the software. One way (but not the only way) of doing this is of course to reduce unnecessary bloat. Just my 2c. Alex ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp
Hi Miklos, Le 07/12/10 22:21, Miklos Vajna a écrit : > > I must miss something really trivial, but I do not see where to start > reading. :) The only way to find pages from the main page is to use the > Random page or Recent changes feature. > > Did I miss the point? :) > No you didn't. In fact you are spot on. If I were to put myself in the position of a first time user of LibO and was directed to that page, I would literally say "you gotta be joking !". What use is an online help system in a wiki that doesn't show index links to the main topics. This is a minimum for any help system. As for the search engine, well, I've never been very impressed with most of the search engines used in default wiki implementations. The user must be given the possibility to browse through the pages of help via links that appear, as they did in the "inline" help system of OOo, otherwise as far as I'm concerned it is absolutely useless. If and when the user comes across a topic for which they know the keyword to search for, then they could of course use the search engine to enhance their browsing experience, but IMHO you can not forego the immediate visual need of a user. An example to look to in this case would be the API documentation of OOo, yes, you can search for the terms using the search engine that Collabnet provided, but you can also drill down via links through the various API descriptions. Whilst I appreciate that it must have taken a lot of work to get this up onto the wiki, IMHO the visual accessibility of the information really needs to be addressed. Alex ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] The future of help [was: Re: Deleting Java from Base]
Hi Sophie, On 2010-12-04 at 08:51 +0300, Sophie Gautier wrote: > >> That one might be actually easy - when the wikihelp is online, I'd > >> default to not building the internal help at all, and instead focus on > >> converting it from the wiki version to the platform-native (Windows / > >> MacOSX / Gnome / KDE [but IIRC, KDE was able to read the Gnome's help > >> natively too]) for the releases. And cut all the help-related code ;-) > >> > >> Objections / support / thoughts? > > > > One of the good things of current Help is: when a control in a certain > > window is selected, and one hits Help/F1, the appropriate help text is > > displayed. > > I hope that can be conserved, while cutting help-related code. > > Also Maj+F1 when the pointer is over an icon, displays extended tips > which are part of the help files, these are the strings between > xxx Yes, extended tips are not handled with wikihelp yet, I am currently thinking how to do it best. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] The future of help [was: Re: Deleting Java from Base]
Hi Cor, On 2010-12-03 at 17:51 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote: > > That one might be actually easy - when the wikihelp is online, I'd > > default to not building the internal help at all, and instead focus on > > converting it from the wiki version to the platform-native (Windows / > > MacOSX / Gnome / KDE [but IIRC, KDE was able to read the Gnome's help > > natively too]) for the releases. And cut all the help-related code ;-) > > > > Objections / support / thoughts? > >One of the good things of current Help is: when a control in a > certain window is selected, and one hits Help/F1, the appropriate help > text is displayed. >I hope that can be conserved, while cutting help-related code. Yes, sure, this is of course a hard requirement for any help system we might potentially switch to. Please try the wikihelp I made live just yesterday, you can see that this is there - in the Windows version, navigate with your keyboard in the menu to something you'd need a help with, hit F1, and you'll get the appropriate page. If not, it is a bug, and please report such cases :-) Thank you, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] RC1 / size redux ...
Hi All, Notes, ideas: Idxexamle*.odf – preview of index (insert index/table). In B2 we had msi file with cab file in rc1 we have msi file embedding cab content. Duplicated license and readme files across installation and also in NSIS preinstaller – Windows Installer too. What if: all zip content (ot?, jar, etc) are stored only, msi compression stored only + overall size of installer (NSIS LZMA compression) may decrase + size of installed LibO will increase, (post installation compression?) + language dependent files, duplicated files may do not count so much Wav recompress to ogg, mp3? Are we supporting all platform? Using common templates category for non localized files. KAMI On 12/07/2010 06:55 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi there, > > So - as we all know, RC1 is too large; and there are a complicated set > of reasons why that is so, which includes some tradeoff between install > time disk space, download size[1], fairness between languages, mirror > capacity, build and up-load times, and so on and so on. > > Anyhow - the good news is, that - having analyzed our .cab file by > expanding it, re-compressing each file individually (with zip), and then > analysing the results - it seems there are some fairly obvious size wins > that are possible. I've uploaded a (2Mb) spreadsheet here: > > http://users.freedesktop.org/~michael/sizes.ods > > 40% of our size is endless duplicates of impress templates (one per > language) - ~none of which have any significant translated content in > them; we should simply ship one copy of each template instead. I believe > some packagers do this on Linux already. > > Similarly, ~20% of the remaining size is (once again multiply > duplicated) .ott files for the Wizards - which should be substantially > identical - with a very little translation sprinkled on top. However - > these will require coding fixes (or plain removal for 3.4 if the size is > too significant). Then another ~20% of the remaining size is license > files in English duplicated again and again per language. > > Similarly, if we cut our themes down to just two, we can save around 14 > Mb on the compressed image, and so on and so on. > > Of course - this requires real work; it is not just a matter of wishing > for it :-) but it it is (I hope) all quite do-able. > > We should be able to get some of these improvements into 3.4, and more > into 3.5. > > Ergo - I am still very optimistic that we can ship a windows > installer / exe that is closer to 200Mb than 300 - without unreasonable > effort. > > Anyhow - at least for RC1 - we have (if it can be download) the code > that everyone will be running - and which is the thing that needs > testing - major regressions / crasher bugs appreciated :-) > > HTH, > > Michael. > > [1] - the bigger the uncompressed .cab, the better NSIS' lzma > compression can remove duplication eg. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] RC1 / size redux ...
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:55:19 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > So - as we all know, RC1 is too large; ... > http://users.freedesktop.org/~michael/sizes.ods This is a phantastic analysis, thanks for doing that Michael. Amazing that OTP + license files make 50% of our used space :). As someone who basically never uses those templates I would argue that they could even be split out into some extra (& optional package). People with crappy download rates might more often than not also still be bound by smaller disk sizes. Loosing 40% of the file size sounds like a nice win in itself. Sebastian P.S. BTW, the extension breakdown in my Linux install (including sdk and without language support) looks like this: so 190 Mb html 53 Mb dat 24 Mb ttf 21 Mb No_ext 18 Mb 40 16 Mb 1 16 Mb zip 15 Mb rdb 14 Mb idl 13 Mb jar 12 Mb ott 7 Mb otp 7 Mb db 5 Mb dic 4 Mb ht 4 Mb cfs 4 Mb xsl 3 Mb idx 3 Mb 3 3 Mb wav 2 Mb xcd 2 Mb java 1 Mb res 1 Mb key 1 Mb hxx 1 Mb afm 1 Mb xml 1 Mb bin 1 Mb ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
