Re: [BUILD]AOO build error in solaris
Thanks for your help, now i meet another problem in building binfilter: In file ooo/main/binfilter/inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx in line 115~117: I don't know how to modify it , because i don't know what's means lvalue. === Entering /UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/binfilter/bf_sch/source/ui/docshell Compiling: binfilter/bf_sch/source/ui/docshell/sch_docshell.cxx ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx, line 115: Error: Initializing binfilter::Point4D requires an lvalue. ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx, line 116: Error: Initializing binfilter::Vector3D requires an lvalue. ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx, line 117: Error: Initializing binfilter::Vector3D requires an lvalue. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdobj.hxx, line 1101: Warning: aGrant is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/xcolit.hxx, line 60: Warning: binfilter::XColorItem::GetValue hides the function binfilter::CntUnencodedStringItem::GetValue() const. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/xcolit.hxx, line 60: Warning: binfilter::XColorItem::SetValue hides the function binfilter::CntUnencodedStringItem::SetValue(const String). ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/graphicobject.hxx, line 88: Warning: binfilter::BfGraphicObject::operator== hides the function GraphicObject::operator==(const GraphicObject) const. ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/graphicobject.hxx, line 88: Warning: binfilter::BfGraphicObject::SetAttr hides the function GraphicObject::SetAttr(const GraphicAttr). ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/graphicobject.hxx, line 88: Warning: binfilter::BfGraphicObject::SetGraphic hides the function GraphicObject::SetGraphic(const Graphic, const GraphicObject*). ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/graphicobject.hxx, line 88: Warning: binfilter::BfGraphicObject::Draw hides the function GraphicObject::Draw(OutputDevice*, const Point, const Size, const GraphicAttr*, unsigned long). ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/graphicobject.hxx, line 88: Warning: binfilter::BfGraphicObject::SetSwapStreamHdl hides the function GraphicObject::SetSwapStreamHdl(). ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/graphicobject.hxx, line 88: Warning: binfilter::BfGraphicObject::SetLink hides the function GraphicObject::SetLink(). ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdotext.hxx, line 397: Warning: rOutl is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdotext.hxx, line 397: Warning: rPaintRect is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdotext.hxx, line 426: Warning: binfilter::SdrTextObj::CheckHit hides the function binfilter::SdrObject::CheckHit(const Point, unsigned short) const. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdotext.hxx, line 426: Warning: binfilter::SdrTextObj::TakeContour hides the virtual function binfilter::SdrObject::TakeContour(binfilter::XPolyPolygon, binfilter::SdrContourType) const. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdotext.hxx, line 426: Warning: binfilter::SdrTextObj::CheckTextEditHit hides the function binfilter::SdrObject::CheckTextEditHit(const Point, unsigned short) const. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 196: Warning: rSource is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 198: Warning: rSource is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 549: Warning: bOn is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 607: Warning: rMEvt is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 607: Warning: pWin is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 608: Warning: rMEvt is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 608: Warning: pWin is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 609: Warning: rMEvt is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 609: Warning: pWin is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 610: Warning: rCEvt is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 610: Warning: pWin is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 611: Warning: nFormat is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 612: Warning: nFormat is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 613: Warning: pWin is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 613: Warning: nFormat is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 638: Warning: xCC is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpntv.hxx, line 639: Warning: xCC is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdmrkv.hxx, line 408: Warning: binfilter::SdrMarkView::HidePage hides the function binfilter::SdrPaintView::HidePage(const binfilter::SdrPage*). ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpage.hxx, line 311: Warning: rSrcList is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/svdpage.hxx, line 312: Warning: rSrcList is defined but not used. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/obj3d.hxx, line 318: Warning: binfilter::E3dObject::GetLayer hides the virtual function binfilter::SdrObject::GetLayer(binfilter::SetOfByte) const. ../../../../inc/bf_svx/obj3d.hxx, line 584: Warning:
Re: old colored vs new monochrome icons
In data 17 dicembre 2011 alle ore 03:08:55, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto: So if each application installs its own icons, then of course icons will be application-specific. Needs no ghost from the grave to tell us that. But we could just as well have multiple apps use the same icons for the same file types. Can I affirm that there is consensus for the first step towards colored icons in AOO 3.4? Nobody objected to that first phase so consensus should have been achieved and Drew and Pedro who are working on this issue should do so without fear, IMO. For other discussions, a separated thread should be started. BTW, always IMO, the icons have a marketing weight too. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
DEB-Builds from Buildbot 64 bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, reading the information of available DEB builds I startet to do the first testings. I tested it at a 64 bit system Debian Wheezy with kernel 3.1 I download them and tried to install them via dpkg. It failed with the error message: Paket-Architektur (x86_64) passt nicht zum System (amd64) translated to English: The packet architecture (x86_64) doesn't fit to the system (amd64) Kind regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7sYwQACgkQucZfh1OziStmCQCfT4PiiXg0y9iEDhpeb28P3LP+ Lt8An3fQ+bdyDjgEWAqLbqZgQ23wAjba =kB+L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: old colored vs new monochrome icons
Am 12/17/2011 10:20 AM, schrieb Gianluca Turconi: In data 17 dicembre 2011 alle ore 03:08:55, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto: So if each application installs its own icons, then of course icons will be application-specific. Needs no ghost from the grave to tell us that. But we could just as well have multiple apps use the same icons for the same file types. Yes, that is also my understanding. We want colored icons for AOO 3.4. Everything else can be integrated after that. Marcus Can I affirm that there is consensus for the first step towards colored icons in AOO 3.4? Nobody objected to that first phase so consensus should have been achieved and Drew and Pedro who are working on this issue should do so without fear, IMO. For other discussions, a separated thread should be started. BTW, always IMO, the icons have a marketing weight too. Regards, Gianluca
Re: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support?
When the localization ratio is not high enough (we have to define this limit), then we should only build a langpack for this language. Otherwise you have, e.g., 30% localized UI and an English-only help. This doesn't help any user. Yes, I agree that a cutoff is sensible though at present it's, from the localization point of view, hard to handle this sensibly because, even though a 50% translation may cover the strings most users use most often (i.e. Writer), it's very hard to tell which strings you should localize in. Sorry if the questions is naive but can you define a langpack language? I never took part at that level with OOO. Are those languages without localized Help? Just a question (and i have no answer) but more and more software I get doesn't use in-product Help but refers you to a Wiki etc. Might it not make sense to consider making in-product Help optional and referring to a Help website for the most part? Secondly, a more sensible, slimline install would certainly sound sense to me. It's been a while since I did the install but if I recall correctly, you actually download the English install with all the langpacks and then have to manually pick your language. Which is bonkers. If I've selected Tamil as my language of choice, then I don't need my bandwidth cluttered up with the other 50 languages. I should *only* get Tamil, with no further messing about. The full pack only makes sense if you're installing more than one language at the same time. That to me would be the two most obvious ways of saving space and bandwidth, so - Move help and other things into a separate download file. - Reduce the doubled data and libraries in the package files. - Improve the installer to download langpacks that the user wants. - etc. Amen to all of these! Michael
Re: Buildbot
2011/12/13 RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com Wops! I just discovered that the package with arc in the name is just the install directory tree, so it is possible to just unpack the whole thing and use it by clicking on the scripts on .../openoffice.org3/program/ BTW, how to report problems with those builds? Using BZ is OK or do we need to comment the problems here? For example, with today build (12 December) any time I try to dock the Stylist or the Navigator Writer crash. On all builds I tried, every time I insert a SVG with Insert → Image → From file AOO Crash. If I drag-n-drop the SVG it do not crash, but the edit area get locked: all menus can be opened and the dialogues appears, but the edit area do not repaint. There is no message on the command line: it just quits. Is this a know issue? I'm on openSUSE 11.4, 64 bits. Cheers Ricardo
Re: Buildbot
Am 17.12.11 15:04, schrieb RGB ES: 2011/12/13 RGB ESrgb.m...@gmail.com Wops! I just discovered that the package with arc in the name is just the install directory tree, so it is possible to just unpack the whole thing and use it by clicking on the scripts on .../openoffice.org3/program/ BTW, how to report problems with those builds? Using BZ is OK or do we need to comment the problems here? For example, with today build (12 December) any time I try to dock the Stylist or the Navigator Writer crash. On all builds I tried, every time I insert a SVG with Insert → Image → From file AOO Crash. If I drag-n-drop the SVG it do not crash, but the edit area get locked: all menus can be opened and the dialogues appears, but the edit area do not repaint. There is no message on the command line: it just quits. Is this a know issue? I'm on openSUSE 11.4, 64 bits. Same for Windows Vista. Cheers Ricardo -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to oo-derivatives (or similar) and move to an apache.org address. Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity. S.
Re: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support?
Am 12/17/2011 01:13 PM, schrieb Michael Bauer: When the localization ratio is not high enough (we have to define this limit), then we should only build a langpack for this language. Otherwise you have, e.g., 30% localized UI and an English-only help. This doesn't help any user. Yes, I agree that a cutoff is sensible though at present it's, from the localization point of view, hard to handle this sensibly because, even though a 50% translation may cover the strings most users use most often (i.e. Writer), it's very hard to tell which strings you should localize in. This depends which strings were localized first. IMHO you cannot know what it is, except you ask everybody what they have done. Maybe you can see this with Pootle, I don't know. So yes, 50% could be OK when you know which parts of AOO are effected. Sorry if the questions is naive but can you define a langpack language? I never took part at that level with OOO. Are those languages without localized Help? Yes and no. ;-) When UI and help were = 80 % we have built full install sets. When help was less but UI still = 80 % we have build langpacks. Only when also UI was 80 % we haven't done any builds for this language. See here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements Just a question (and i have no answer) but more and more software I get doesn't use in-product Help but refers you to a Wiki etc. Might it not make sense to consider making in-product Help optional and referring to a Help website for the most part? Yes, this could be a good option. Maybe it's even better as a Wiki can be kept much better up-to-date. But it has to be a read-only area for the normal user were only the doc writers have permissions to modify the content. Secondly, a more sensible, slimline install would certainly sound sense to me. It's been a while since I did the install but if I recall correctly, you actually download the English install with all the langpacks and then have to manually pick your language. Which is No, thats not correct. Just choose the full install for your favorite language from the download webpage: http://download.openoffice.org/other.html If it's only available as langpack, then you have to first choose a full install build (normally it's English) as a langpack contains only the language ressources but not the actual program. bonkers. If I've selected Tamil as my language of choice, then I don't need my bandwidth cluttered up with the other 50 languages. I should *only* get Tamil, with no further messing about. The full pack only makes sense if you're installing more than one language at the same time. I've no clue were you got this information from but it's not correct. For your example you have to choose only one full install package first and then you can download the langpack for Tamil. That to me would be the two most obvious ways of saving space and bandwidth, so - Move help and other things into a separate download file. - Reduce the doubled data and libraries in the package files. - Improve the installer to download langpacks that the user wants. - etc. Amen to all of these! Marcus
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to oo-derivatives (or similar) and move to an apache.org address. Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity. What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that LibreOffice is something different than OpenOffice.org rather than 90% the same, derived from OpenOffice. It fails to show that there always has always been an ecosystem of projects derived from OOo code. The fact is every user of LO is also a user of OOo code. It is part of that ecosystem. Not just the past, but also the future. For example, I see that Michael is looking forward to using (cherry picking) our recent improvements in SVG support: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021884.html This is wonderful. -Rob S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the message I'm after. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to oo-derivatives (or similar) and move to an apache.org address. Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity. S.
Re: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support?
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 12/17/2011 01:13 PM, schrieb Michael Bauer: When the localization ratio is not high enough (we have to define this limit), then we should only build a langpack for this language. Otherwise you have, e.g., 30% localized UI and an English-only help. This doesn't help any user. Yes, I agree that a cutoff is sensible though at present it's, from the localization point of view, hard to handle this sensibly because, even though a 50% translation may cover the strings most users use most often (i.e. Writer), it's very hard to tell which strings you should localize in. This depends which strings were localized first. IMHO you cannot know what it is, except you ask everybody what they have done. Maybe you can see this with Pootle, I don't know. So yes, 50% could be OK when you know which parts of AOO are effected. Backing up for a second. Why exactly did OOo make rules like this? Was it to encourage translators by giving an incentive to reach a certain % of completion? Was it to protect the OpenOffice.org brand by ensuring that only translations with certain quality level were released? Was it to reduce the load on release management both on infrastructure (mirrrors) and release engineers? And do we have the same constraints here at Apache? And do we have other opportunities here that we did not have before? For example, I'm pretty sure that we don't have a full time release engineer to build and manage hundreds of different release artifacts. (Of course, if someone volunteers to do that, then that would be wonderful). What if we took a more decentralize approach? For example, produce only language packs. Release all languages packs, but label them based on degree of completeness. For example: gold, silver, bronze, or level 1, level 2, level 3, etc. In other words, we don't hold back partial work, but set expectations based on some consistent labeling schema. Then allow NL projects (external to Apache or as their own Apache projects) to distribute integrated builds on their own. Again, I'm not saying what OOo was wrong. I'm just saying it was a solution based on the opportunities and constraints that existed at that time, and was enabled by subsidized release engineering from Sun/Oracle. We're in a different situation now. What makes the most sense now? -Rob
Re: [BUILD]AOO build error in solaris
Hi L'oiseau de mer, On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 04:58:12PM +0800, L'oiseau de mer wrote: Thanks for your help, now i meet another problem in building binfilter: In file ooo/main/binfilter/inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx in line 115~117: I don't know how to modify it , because i don't know what's means lvalue. so you won't understand the error. Google lvalue and rvalue sure you'll find some tutorial. === Entering /UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/binfilter/bf_sch/source/ui/docshell Compiling: binfilter/bf_sch/source/ui/docshell/sch_docshell.cxx ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx, line 115: Error: Initializing binfilter::Point4D requires an lvalue. ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx, line 116: Error: Initializing binfilter::Vector3D requires an lvalue. ../../../../inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx, line 117: Error: Initializing binfilter::Vector3D requires an lvalue. your compiler's behaviour has changed: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18659_01/html/821-2414/gkeza.html You cannot initialize a reference to a non-const object with an rvalue or temporary. You can fix this in different ways: a) changing AOO source code, where relevant. In this case, for example, see trunk/main/binfilter/inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx#110 trunk/main/binfilter/bf_goodies/source/base3d/goodies_hmatrix.cxx#588 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/binfilter/inc/bf_goodies/hmatrix.hxx?revision=1198409view=markup#l110 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/binfilter/bf_goodies/source/base3d/goodies_hmatrix.cxx?revision=1198219view=markup#l588 You can add your compiler in the line #if defined ( ICC ) || defined( GCC ) b) modify the options passed to the compiler, so that it can restore the old behaviour. According to the Oracle documentation: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18659_01/html/821-1383/bkana.html [Do not] Allow binding a non-const reference to an rvalue or temporary. Default: -features=no%rvalueref The C++ compiler, by default, enforces the rule that a non-const reference cannot be bound to a temporary or rvalue. To override this rule, use the option -features=rvalueref. See also http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18659_01/html/821-2676/CCplusplus.1.html For (b) you can: b.1. modify AOO settings in trunk/main/solenv b.2. try exporting ARCH_FLAGS, vid. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/solenv/inc/unxsoli4.mk?revision=1174164view=markup#l45 So please open an issue for this in bugzilla, and try export ARCH_FLAGS=-features=rvalueref and tell us if this worked for you. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgptxxCgJfuXl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release, it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts would show as a new block. Michael's has the advantage that it shows the relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide. S. On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the message I'm after. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to oo-derivatives (or similar) and move to an apache.org address. Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity. S.
Re: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support?
Am 12/17/2011 04:06 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 12/17/2011 01:13 PM, schrieb Michael Bauer: When the localization ratio is not high enough (we have to define this limit), then we should only build a langpack for this language. Otherwise you have, e.g., 30% localized UI and an English-only help. This doesn't help any user. Yes, I agree that a cutoff is sensible though at present it's, from the localization point of view, hard to handle this sensibly because, even though a 50% translation may cover the strings most users use most often (i.e. Writer), it's very hard to tell which strings you should localize in. This depends which strings were localized first. IMHO you cannot know what it is, except you ask everybody what they have done. Maybe you can see this with Pootle, I don't know. So yes, 50% could be OK when you know which parts of AOO are effected. Backing up for a second. Why exactly did OOo make rules like this? I've told this already. Was it to encourage translators by giving an incentive to reach a certain % of completion? I don't think so. Was it to protect the OpenOffice.org brand by ensuring that only translations with certain quality level were released? I don't see a connection between l10n and trademarks here. Was it to reduce the load on release management both on infrastructure (mirrrors) and release engineers? Yes, yes, and time. It's a difference when releng has to do and monitor building a handful (while the lunch break) or thousands of builds (hours and days). It's a difference when you have to archive some or thousands files per release. It's a difference when you have to convince mirror admins again and again not to quit because of hundreds of GB for every new release. And do we have the same constraints here at Apache? And do we have Disk space is also worthwhile for Apache software serving mirrors. The admins are not special. And now everybody could be a release engineer. IMHO it hasn't really changed. other opportunities here that we did not have before? For example, I'm pretty sure that we don't have a full time release engineer to build and manage hundreds of different release artifacts. (Of course, if someone volunteers to do that, then that would be wonderful). Absolutely. What if we took a more decentralize approach? For example, produce only language packs. Release all languages packs, but label them based on degree of completeness. For example: gold, silver, bronze, We had tried this before. At some point in time we had always requests to build also full install sets because it's easier for the endusers to install only 1 file. I'm pretty sure it would come back as the situation wouldn't be different. But from the technial side, yes, maybe the only good shortterm solution for releasing every lanuage that has strings in Pootle. Of course only until we have a smarter packahres and installer that need less space on mirrors. Then we can create a generic install build that downloads resource files for every wished language. or level 1, level 2, level 3, etc. In other words, we don't hold back partial work, but set expectations based on some consistent labeling I don't know if I like this public labeling as it could also be interpreted as Doesn't make sense to use it, it's just poorly translated. A general hint that some languages are not yet completely localized would be more friendly. schema. Then allow NL projects (external to Apache or as their own Apache projects) to distribute integrated builds on their own. And name it also Apache OpenOffice? Hm, could be (again) a problem of the Am I allowed to use the name? thingy. ;-) What makes the most sense now? Good point. IMHO we should concentrate on that what we all can accomplish. And, sorry, it's on a different level than before. Marcus
A timeline for an Apache OO release
If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 17 December 2011 15:44, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: Michael's has the advantage that it shows the relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide. It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then Michaels would indeed be a better document). Ross S. On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the message I'm after. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to oo-derivatives (or similar) and move to an apache.org address. Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity. S. -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
Am 12/17/2011 05:09 PM, schrieb Ross Gardler: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? I would love to see the day where one could say Hey, the release is faster than planned. Isn't that great?. SCNR Therefore I tent to First half 2012 when someone steps on your toes to get a date. Marcus
Re: GStreamer not optional
On 12/17/2011 8:13 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 04:14:52AM +, build...@apache.org wrote: The Buildbot has finished a build on builder openofficeorg-nightly while building ASF Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/openofficeorg-nightly/builds/41 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: tethys_ubuntu Build Reason: The Nightly scheduler named 'openofficeorgNightly' triggered this build Build Source Stamp: [branch incubator/ooo/trunk] HEAD Blamelist: BUILD FAILED: failed compile_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot http://ci.apache.org/builders/openofficeorg-nightly/builds/41/steps/compile_2/logs/stdio checking whether to build the GStreamer media backend... checking for GSTREAMER... no configure: error: requirements to build the GStreamer media backend not met. Use --disable-gstreamer or install the missing packages program finished with exit code 1 Why did this just happen now? What has changed? We have had many successful builds over the last few weeks, and the machine setup has not changed. Is this due to the category_b change? I will add --disable-gstreamer temporarily, if there is no other fix. A. I think we should make GStreamer optional, so that --enable-gstreamer should be set explicitly if you want the gstreamer avmedia plug-in, and not forcing to use --disable-gstreamer by default. Regards
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
We're nearing a copyleft-free build milestone. What I hear - and take this as an estimate, not a commitment -would be Q1 for a 3.4 release. -Rob On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
A further, related question (I'm working on a blog piece) would we say Apache OpenOffice (incubating) plans to release a reference implementation of the OpenOffice.org suite in ..., or is some other phrasing preferred? Ross On 17 December 2011 16:51, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: We're nearing a copyleft-free build milestone. What I hear - and take this as an estimate, not a commitment -would be Q1 for a 3.4 release. -Rob On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: A further, related question (I'm working on a blog piece) would we say Apache OpenOffice (incubating) plans to release a reference implementation of the OpenOffice.org suite in ..., or is some other phrasing preferred? What's your definition of a reference build? Would an official Apache release of OpenOffice 3.4 meet that definition? Ross On 17 December 2011 16:51, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: We're nearing a copyleft-free build milestone. What I hear - and take this as an estimate, not a commitment -would be Q1 for a 3.4 release. -Rob On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: GStreamer not optional
Hi Andrew, On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:46:43AM -0800, Andrew Rist wrote: On 12/17/2011 8:13 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 04:14:52AM +, build...@apache.org wrote: The Buildbot has finished a build on builder openofficeorg-nightly while building ASF Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/openofficeorg-nightly/builds/41 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: tethys_ubuntu Build Reason: The Nightly scheduler named 'openofficeorgNightly' triggered this build Build Source Stamp: [branch incubator/ooo/trunk] HEAD Blamelist: BUILD FAILED: failed compile_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot http://ci.apache.org/builders/openofficeorg-nightly/builds/41/steps/compile_2/logs/stdio checking whether to build the GStreamer media backend... checking for GSTREAMER... no configure: error: requirements to build the GStreamer media backend not met. Use --disable-gstreamer or install the missing packages program finished with exit code 1 Why did this just happen now? What has changed? We have had many successful builds over the last few weeks, and the machine setup has not changed. Is this due to the category_b change? yes I will add --disable-gstreamer temporarily, if there is no other fix. I committed http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1215522 Gstreamer is now disabled by default. To enable compilation of the GStreamer AVMedia plug-in now one has to provide --enable-gstreamer, and configure will fail if you do not have the headers and libraries (gstreamer-devel in Fedora, may be libgstreamer0.10-dev in Ubuntu). Oracle default builds came with the GStreamer AVMedia plugin, no audio and video support on Linux is a no-go, IMO. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpbnPcA3HELO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 17 December 2011 16:24, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 12/17/2011 05:09 PM, schrieb Ross Gardler: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? ... Therefore I tent to First half 2012 when someone steps on your toes to get a date. Thanks, given your comment and Robs (Q1, but it's not a commitment) response I think I'll go with first half. I'm still listening if anyone wants to argue for Q1 Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 17 December 2011 16:57, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: A further, related question (I'm working on a blog piece) would we say Apache OpenOffice (incubating) plans to release a reference implementation of the OpenOffice.org suite in ..., or is some other phrasing preferred? What's your definition of a reference build? Would an official Apache release of OpenOffice 3.4 meet that definition? That's a good question and I think is probably what I'm asking ;-) I'm a little confused as to what brand the release will push, Apache OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org. Ross Ross On 17 December 2011 16:51, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: We're nearing a copyleft-free build milestone. What I hear - and take this as an estimate, not a commitment -would be Q1 for a 3.4 release. -Rob On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Dec 17, 2011 4:13 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then Michaels would indeed be a better document). What do you want to show? Maybe one of us can help by coming up with a suitable graphical representation that shows it without misrepresenting other facts? S.
Re: Proposal: ooo-announce list
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I see that many other projects have an official announce list. This would be used for official public communications: 1) New releases 2) New services 3) New blog posts 4) Security patches 5) Expected downtime 6) Migration updates The idea would be for it to be low-volume but with high membership. If possible via ezmlm, it would be a read-only list except for moderators. Content for posting would first be discussed and approved on ooo-dev before going out on the announce list. Some might say that we could just do this via existing ooo-dev or ooo-user lists, but the higher traffic on those lists is too much for someone who wants only the most important notices. +1 to all ideas...a very good idea in fact! :) If we do have an optional registration screen in the 3.4 install, maybe this is the list we offer to sign users up for. If there are no objections to this list, I'll need a few things: 1) Verification that such a read-only list is possible 2) A few moderator volunteers -- noting that the moderator role in this case is more of an assist to help publish PPMC-approved content to the list. -Rob -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
My thought. Given that OpenOffice.org 3.4 Beta is already out there. An announcement along the lines of: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project set a tentative release time for OpenOffice.org Version 3.4 for the 1st Qtr of 2012. sounds about right to my ear. The pressure of re-branding would be lowered, I would think, moving such to the 3.5 (or ?) release. With the provision, of course, replace or not 1st Qtr with whatever the developer corps feels appropriate. Put another way perhaps, I'd weigh the gains from a trade off of re-branding for quicker release cycle, at this moment. Best wishes, //drew On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 11:57 -0500, Donald Harbison wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: A further, related question (I'm working on a blog piece) would we say Apache OpenOffice (incubating) plans to release a reference implementation of the OpenOffice.org suite in ..., or is some other phrasing preferred? What's your definition of a reference build? Would an official Apache release of OpenOffice 3.4 meet that definition? Ross On 17 December 2011 16:51, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: We're nearing a copyleft-free build milestone. What I hear - and take this as an estimate, not a commitment -would be Q1 for a 3.4 release. -Rob On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: If I were to tell people when to expect an Apache OO release what would I say? Q1 2012? First half 2012? February 2012? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 17, 2011 5:09 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Dec 17, 2011 4:13 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then Michaels would indeed be a better document). What do you want to show? Maybe one of us can help by coming up with a suitable graphical representation that shows it without misrepresenting other facts? I'm looking for something that shows diversity in the open document format ecosystem. I don't want to get into marking territory, comparing size, arguing over who is better or more active or inactive or whatever. I want facts, nothing more. Just an alphabetised list of all projects that consume and/or produce ODF would be ideal. Anything along those lines would be very much appreciated. Ross
Re: Buildbot
Hi Ricardo, On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 03:04:21PM +0100, RGB ES wrote: On all builds I tried, every time I insert a SVG with Insert → Image → From file AOO Crash. If I drag-n-drop the SVG it do not crash, but the edit area get locked: all menus can be opened and the dialogues appears, but the edit area do not repaint. There is no message on the command line: it just quits. I see a crash in both scenarios: * Insert - Image - From file * Drag and drop from the file browser I can't reproduce your second one. Is this a know issue? svg support has been disabled, as it was copy-left. You shouldn't try to insert an svg file! ;) * Revision 1200879 removed the component implementation, but forgot to remove it from component passive registration file * RenderGraphicRasterizer::InitializeRasterizer tries to instantiate the component, this should be in a try-catch block I guess a cleaner fix would be remove completely svg from the graphic filter configuration, so that the user can not even try to insert an svg file. I'll commit the trivial fix, please try tomorrow with tonight's nightly build. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpqTYBFlnKiI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Buildbot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Ariel, which build did you test on which maschine? where do you get it from I tried to install the build from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ under debian 64 bit. It failed with the error message: Paket-Architektur (x86_64) passt nicht zum System (amd64) translated to English: The packet architecture (x86_64) doesn't fit to the system (amd64) Can someone give me a hint? Kind regards Mechtilde Am 17.12.2011 19:55, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi Ricardo, On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 03:04:21PM +0100, RGB ES wrote: On all builds I tried, every time I insert a SVG with Insert ? Image ? From file AOO Crash. If I drag-n-drop the SVG it do not crash, but the edit area get locked: all menus can be opened and the dialogues appears, but the edit area do not repaint. There is no message on the command line: it just quits. I see a crash in both scenarios: * Insert - Image - From file * Drag and drop from the file browser I can't reproduce your second one. Is this a know issue? svg support has been disabled, as it was copy-left. You shouldn't try to insert an svg file! ;) * Revision 1200879 removed the component implementation, but forgot to remove it from component passive registration file * RenderGraphicRasterizer::InitializeRasterizer tries to instantiate the component, this should be in a try-catch block I guess a cleaner fix would be remove completely svg from the graphic filter configuration, so that the user can not even try to insert an svg file. I'll commit the trivial fix, please try tomorrow with tonight's nightly build. Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7s6wIACgkQucZfh1OziStxfACdHWzbgb5ms1kQ41AOco1IN0C/ TxoAoIIc7UXy5xbGpe7m7vziKJJFQCZt =98Qz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Buildbot
2011/12/17 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org svg support has been disabled, as it was copy-left. You shouldn't try to insert an svg file! ;) So the native implementation (1) is not merged yet? I'll commit the trivial fix, please try tomorrow with tonight's nightly build. I'll be on a plane tomorrow, so I'll try on Friday ;) (1) http://eric.bachard.org/news/index.php?post/2011/12/03/In-progress-%3A-native-support-of-the-SVG-graphic-format-in-Apache-OpenOffice.org
RE: Proposal: ooo-announce list
+1 as well. I'm still declining any further moderator gigs at this time. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:13 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal: ooo-announce list On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I see that many other projects have an official announce list. This would be used for official public communications: 1) New releases 2) New services 3) New blog posts 4) Security patches 5) Expected downtime 6) Migration updates The idea would be for it to be low-volume but with high membership. If possible via ezmlm, it would be a read-only list except for moderators. Content for posting would first be discussed and approved on ooo-dev before going out on the announce list. Some might say that we could just do this via existing ooo-dev or ooo-user lists, but the higher traffic on those lists is too much for someone who wants only the most important notices. +1 to all ideas...a very good idea in fact! :) If we do have an optional registration screen in the 3.4 install, maybe this is the list we offer to sign users up for. If there are no objections to this list, I'll need a few things: 1) Verification that such a read-only list is possible 2) A few moderator volunteers -- noting that the moderator role in this case is more of an assist to help publish PPMC-approved content to the list. -Rob -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi
RE: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support?
Michael, I think the language selections are for writing aids, not UI and Help internationalization. You might want several even though your UI is English, for example. If you look at the OOo-dev 3.4 beta release, you'll see that there is only a full release (with Java JRE too, I suppose, on Windows) for English. This will be an English UI plus writing aids for a few flavors each of en, fr, and one for es. All other languages, including any UI internationalization, are via langpacks, one per listed language. The langpack adds a UI language and embedded help internationalizations, as available, and whatever writing aids there are for that language, also as available. For the supplemental Italian langpack install that I did as an experiment, when I select the UI language to be Italian, the embedded help switches to Italian also. The enumeration is here: http://download.openoffice.org/all_beta.html. I notice that LibreOffice 3.4 install for Windows-en includes the writing aids for just over 30 native languages. (Sometimes variants are in separate sets, sometimes multiple variants are in the same aid folder.) The embedded help is a separate helppack download and install. It's true that the installed extensions take almost 200MB when extracted into the file system, including non-writing-aid extensions that are included in the install. This does not answer your question about where the bar is on UI internationalization, but it should make clear what a langpack can provide. One factor in packaging has to do with the size of full installs on Windows and a desire to minimize the number of them. I have no insight into that. There are many variables that factor into it. It is undoubtedly not a one-size-fits-all, but having the volunteers to create and verify many variations is an additional factor. It might be a reasonable downstream business though. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Michael Bauer [mailto:f...@akerbeltz.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 04:14 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: How many languages will Apache OpenOffice support? [ ... ] Sorry if the questions is naive but can you define a langpack language? I never took part at that level with OOO. Are those languages without localized Help? Just a question (and i have no answer) but more and more software I get doesn't use in-product Help but refers you to a Wiki etc. Might it not make sense to consider making in-product Help optional and referring to a Help website for the most part? Secondly, a more sensible, slimline install would certainly sound sense to me. It's been a while since I did the install but if I recall correctly, you actually download the English install with all the langpacks and then have to manually pick your language. Which is bonkers. If I've selected Tamil as my language of choice, then I don't need my bandwidth cluttered up with the other 50 languages. I should *only* get Tamil, with no further messing about. The full pack only makes sense if you're installing more than one language at the same time. That to me would be the two most obvious ways of saving space and bandwidth, so - Move help and other things into a separate download file. - Reduce the doubled data and libraries in the package files. - Improve the installer to download langpacks that the user wants. - etc. Amen to all of these! Michael
RE: A timeline for an Apache OO release
The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. OOo-dev 3.4 is not exactly out there as far as the public consciousness is concerned. Has there ever been a non-developer bugzilla against it? I've not seen any user-list statement of a problem by someone using OOo-dev, though I didn't start following those lists until Summer 2011. Also, OOo-dev 3.4 was only available in English full installs, with langpacks for everybody else. And, of course, there is a gigantic disclaimer against production use. I would think a similar disclaimer will accompany the first podling release too. And if it is not fully rebranded, I think it can at best be a technology preview release. - Dennis -Original Message- From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:15 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release My thought. Given that OpenOffice.org 3.4 Beta is already out there. An announcement along the lines of: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project set a tentative release time for OpenOffice.org Version 3.4 for the 1st Qtr of 2012. sounds about right to my ear. The pressure of re-branding would be lowered, I would think, moving such to the 3.5 (or ?) release. With the provision, of course, replace or not 1st Qtr with whatever the developer corps feels appropriate. Put another way perhaps, I'd weigh the gains from a trade off of re-branding for quicker release cycle, at this moment. Best wishes, //drew [ ... ] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Does that include converters and commercial offerings that have embedded support for ODF consumption and production? (I suppose if Symphony is in that diagram, the answer is yes at least for embedded support.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:25 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter? [ ... ] I don't want to get into marking territory, comparing size, arguing over who is better or more active or inactive or whatever. I want facts, nothing more. Just an alphabetised list of all projects that consume and/or produce ODF would be ideal. Anything along those lines would be very much appreciated. Ross
Re: Buildbot
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:18:28PM +0100, RGB ES wrote: 2011/12/17 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org svg support has been disabled, as it was copy-left. You shouldn't try to insert an svg file! ;) So the native implementation (1) is not merged yet? (1) http://eric.bachard.org/news/index.php?post/2011/12/03/In-progress-%3A-native-support-of-the-SVG-graphic-format-in-Apache-OpenOffice.org not yet, it's on a feature branch. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpgIKLf1nzSC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Dec 17, 2011 5:25 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I'm looking for something that shows diversity in the open document format ecosystem. Ah, OK. Rob's chart is unsuitable for that, as he only shows projects that have rebranded or reused OpenOffice.org at some time in history. There are a number of other significant packages supporting ODF broadly, notably Abiword and MS Office. The best list I know is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODF#Software As Dennis hints, it's a tricky question as the degree of support (extent of vocabulary recognised, extent of implementation etc) and scope of the tool (applications supported, read-only or read/write, and so on) both vary. The full ecosystem if you include viewers, convertors and so in is quite extensive. You sound like you just want editors; let me know if the Wikipedia list helps for your purpose. S.
Re: Buildbot
Hi Mechtilde, * On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:18:26PM +0100, Mechtilde wrote: which build did you test on which maschine? where do you get it from I test on my own builds. I tried to install the build from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ under debian 64 bit. It failed with the error message: Paket-Architektur (x86_64) passt nicht zum System (amd64) translated to English: The packet architecture (x86_64) doesn't fit to the system (amd64) Can someone give me a hint? try the arc file, it does not need to be installed, you just untar the file; and the user directory is created inside, so you can try it on parallel with other versions. http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/OOo_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US-2011-12-16.tar.gz @Andrew Rist: it seems the buildbot is using the system EPM, and is generating packages that don't follow the debian naming scheme. If so, it can be fixed by using a *patched* epm 3.7 version http://www.epmhome.org/software.php?VERSION=4.2FILE=epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.bz2 patched with this patch: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/raw-file/c904c1944462/epm/epm-3.7.patch The patch fixes the wrong naming scheme, for example: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/file/c904c1944462/epm/epm-3.7.patch#l203 Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpzWsrmVy1jk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Buildbot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Ariel Am 17.12.2011 20:53, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi Mechtilde, * On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:18:26PM +0100, Mechtilde wrote: which build did you test on which maschine? where do you get it from I test on my own builds. I tried to install the build from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ under debian 64 bit. It failed with the error message: Paket-Architektur (x86_64) passt nicht zum System (amd64) translated to English: The packet architecture (x86_64) doesn't fit to the system (amd64) Can someone give me a hint? try the arc file, it does not need to be installed, you just untar the file; and the user directory is created inside, so you can try it on parallel with other versions. http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/OOo_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US-2011-12-16.tar.gz thanks for your answer but this build failed after starting with [Java framework] Error in function createSettingsDocument (elements.cxx) javaldx failed 1]+ Exit 77 @Andrew Rist: it seems the buildbot is using the system EPM, and is generating packages that don't follow the debian naming scheme. If so, it can be fixed by using a *patched* epm 3.7 version http://www.epmhome.org/software.php?VERSION=4.2FILE=epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.bz2 patched with this patch: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/raw-file/c904c1944462/epm/epm-3.7.patch The patch fixes the wrong naming scheme, for example: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/file/c904c1944462/epm/epm-3.7.patch#l203 Then I will wait for a build after this patch Kind regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7s9PkACgkQucZfh1OziSvRmACeLpUBAWx4K2lVKATvZTDZXi7M xxcAn3eODtyaXb34CDggoXTH/UFDPHKE =2j2A -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. OOo-dev 3.4 is not exactly out there as far as the public consciousness is concerned. Has there ever been a non-developer bugzilla against it? I've not seen any user-list statement of a problem by someone using OOo-dev, though I didn't start following those lists until Summer 2011. Also, OOo-dev 3.4 was only available in English full installs, with langpacks for everybody else. And, of course, there is a gigantic disclaimer against production use. I would think a similar disclaimer will accompany the first podling release too. And if it is not fully rebranded, I think it can at best be a technology preview release. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:15 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release My thought. Given that OpenOffice.org 3.4 Beta is already out there. An announcement along the lines of: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project set a tentative release time for OpenOffice.org Version 3.4 for the 1st Qtr of 2012. sounds about right to my ear. The pressure of re-branding would be lowered, I would think, moving such to the 3.5 (or ?) release. With the provision, of course, replace or not 1st Qtr with whatever the developer corps feels appropriate. Put another way perhaps, I'd weigh the gains from a trade off of re-branding for quicker release cycle, at this moment. Best wishes, //drew [ ... ]
Re: Proposal: ooo-announce list
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: +1 as well. I'm still declining any further moderator gigs at this time. I put in the Infra request 5 days ago. We can stop voting now. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:13 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal: ooo-announce list On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I see that many other projects have an official announce list. This would be used for official public communications: 1) New releases 2) New services 3) New blog posts 4) Security patches 5) Expected downtime 6) Migration updates The idea would be for it to be low-volume but with high membership. If possible via ezmlm, it would be a read-only list except for moderators. Content for posting would first be discussed and approved on ooo-dev before going out on the announce list. Some might say that we could just do this via existing ooo-dev or ooo-user lists, but the higher traffic on those lists is too much for someone who wants only the most important notices. +1 to all ideas...a very good idea in fact! :) If we do have an optional registration screen in the 3.4 install, maybe this is the list we offer to sign users up for. If there are no objections to this list, I'll need a few things: 1) Verification that such a read-only list is possible 2) A few moderator volunteers -- noting that the moderator role in this case is more of an assist to help publish PPMC-approved content to the list. -Rob -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: Buildbot
Hi Mechtilde, On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:00:58PM +0100, Mechtilde wrote: try the arc file, it does not need to be installed, you just untar the file; and the user directory is created inside, so you can try it on parallel with other versions. http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/OOo_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US-2011-12-16.tar.gz thanks for your answer but this build failed after starting with [Java framework] Error in function createSettingsDocument (elements.cxx) javaldx failed 1]+ Exit 77 I try it, and it works. It looks like a permission issue. Did you unpack it to a directory where you have read-write access? Try changing the user directory permissions: ]$ chmod 770 OOo_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US/openoffice.org3/.openoffice.org If I change the permissions to 666 I can reproduce your issue: ]$ chmod 666 OOo_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US/openoffice.org3/.openoffice.org ]$ OOo_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US/openoffice.org3/program/soffice [Java framework] Error in function createSettingsDocument (elements.cxx). javaldx failed! Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgphznGvPKiPH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 17 December 2011 19:25, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Does that include converters and commercial offerings that have embedded support for ODF consumption and production? (I suppose if Symphony is in that diagram, the answer is yes at least for embedded support.) Yes, although I realise a request for an itemisation of *everything* is probably unrealistic. What I want is something that gives an idea of the reach of ODF and therefore the potential sphere of influence that Apache OpenOffice code, under a permissive license, might have. Ross - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:25 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter? [ ... ] I don't want to get into marking territory, comparing size, arguing over who is better or more active or inactive or whatever. I want facts, nothing more. Just an alphabetised list of all projects that consume and/or produce ODF would be ideal. Anything along those lines would be very much appreciated. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 17 December 2011 19:50, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Dec 17, 2011 5:25 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I'm looking for something that shows diversity in the open document format ecosystem. Ah, OK. Rob's chart is unsuitable for that, as he only shows projects that have rebranded or reused OpenOffice.org at some time in history. Yes, that is true. I admit I jumped at your tentative offer of help and expanded the remit ;-) There are a number of other significant packages supporting ODF broadly, notably Abiword and MS Office. The best list I know is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODF#Software Damn, I never even thought of looking there! It's even impartial - thank you! You sound like you just want editors; let me know if the Wikipedia list helps for your purpose. It certainly does and if anyone feels that they can improve that list, go for it. We'll let the Wikipedia editorial process deal with the impartiality thing. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: A timeline for an Apache OO release
I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide when, if ever, to remove a previous version. For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a productivity product installed. As a matter of policy, I would never silently uninstall anything. That is regardless of the presumed quality of the new release. My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of confidence (or hubris) might be. I am not presuming anything about the quality of any non-existent release. I am expressing a principle that does not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. [ ... ] I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob [ ... ]
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
why did I receive this email all I am doing is trying to solve a problem using OfficeSuite LE... On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide when, if ever, to remove a previous version. For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a productivity product installed. As a matter of policy, I would never silently uninstall anything. That is regardless of the presumed quality of the new release. My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of confidence (or hubris) might be. I am not presuming anything about the quality of any non-existent release. I am expressing a principle that does not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. [ ... ] I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob [ ... ]
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide when, if ever, to remove a previous version. The user is free to pick another directory at install time, right? So they can make the choice that works best for them. If you want to improve on the install logic that has worked well for OpenOffice for past releases, then that is wonderful as well. There is always room for improvement and patches are welcome. But my issues was more with your assertion that 3.4 should come with a gigantic disclaimer against production use. I think that is an irresponsible statement, considering you have not seen or tested a 3.4 candidate release yet. -Rob For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a productivity product installed. As a matter of policy, I would never silently uninstall anything. That is regardless of the presumed quality of the new release. My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of confidence (or hubris) might be. I am not presuming anything about the quality of any non-existent release. I am expressing a principle that does not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. [ ... ] I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob [ ... ]
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On 17 December 2011 19:25, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Does that include converters and commercial offerings that have embedded support for ODF consumption and production? (I suppose if Symphony is in that diagram, the answer is yes at least for embedded support.) Yes, although I realise a request for an itemisation of *everything* is probably unrealistic. What I want is something that gives an idea of the reach of ODF and therefore the potential sphere of influence that Apache OpenOffice code, under a permissive license, might have. The Wikipedia article is a good source of ODF-supporting applications and tools. But we should avoid stereotyping OpenOffice as being only an ODF editor. It has broad support for importing and exporting many other formats, standard as well as well-established proprietary formats. In the end there are multiple, overlapping ecosystems, of code, of standards, etc. -Rob Ross - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:25 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter? [ ... ] I don't want to get into marking territory, comparing size, arguing over who is better or more active or inactive or whatever. I want facts, nothing more. Just an alphabetised list of all projects that consume and/or produce ODF would be ideal. Anything along those lines would be very much appreciated. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi Rob, On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 09:49 -0500, Rob Weir wrote: Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context? http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html ... What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that LibreOffice is something different than OpenOffice.org rather than 90% the same, derived from OpenOffice. You know - I would think the title of my blog: Trying to visualise Open Source OpenOffice.org derivatives And the title embedded in the graph image: Recent history of Legacy OpenOffice Ecosystem Derivatives Made this pretty plain :-) Of course the exact lineage of each build from each vendor follows a rather tangled path; but no-one is trying to deny a common ancestor between AOOI and LibreOffice. It fails to show that there always has always been an ecosystem of projects derived from OOo code. Sure - my graph is mostly interested in trying to present a more balanced view of the present, from which hopefully people may have a better grasp of the future. Yours was (in context) talking about the legacy tail, and frequent forking of the code-base as your title makes clear, which is fine too in it's original context. I think extrapolating from it carries some risk though; and it is sad to have so few LibreOffice releases rendered. The fact is every user of LO is also a user of OOo code. Sure, and every user of AOOI is also a user of OOo code, many of us were also very long term contributors to OOo and hence (by extension, and unwittingly to AOOI) :-) It is part of that ecosystem. cf. the title of my post, and slides :-) Not just the past, but also the future. For example, I see that Michael is looking forward to using (cherry picking) our recent improvements in SVG support: Sure - if it is easier for us to include an existing feature, under an acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother re-writing it ? conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ? I don't want anyone to get the idea that LibreOffice will be based on AOOI, and that this is going to be the rule. The term cherry picking is used advisedly - if there are cherries worth picking someone -may- pick them from time to time as/when licensing is squared up on both sides. All the best, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 17 December 2011 22:01, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On 17 December 2011 19:25, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Does that include converters and commercial offerings that have embedded support for ODF consumption and production? (I suppose if Symphony is in that diagram, the answer is yes at least for embedded support.) Yes, although I realise a request for an itemisation of *everything* is probably unrealistic. What I want is something that gives an idea of the reach of ODF and therefore the potential sphere of influence that Apache OpenOffice code, under a permissive license, might have. The Wikipedia article is a good source of ODF-supporting applications and tools. But we should avoid stereotyping OpenOffice as being only an ODF editor. It has broad support for importing and exporting many other formats, standard as well as well-established proprietary formats. Noted - thanks Rob. Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or necessary. Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose, neither is Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is a good one. Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi, Le 17 déc. 11 à 23:26, Ross Gardler a écrit : Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or necessary. Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose, Well, it is not that bad. neither is Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is a good one. If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version pretends Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ OpenOffice.org ) is a fork We probably should take an eye on the Italian and the German versions. -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
RE: A timeline for an Apache OO release
Um, are you expecting that the first podling release of binaries will not be a beta? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 13:59 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide when, if ever, to remove a previous version. The user is free to pick another directory at install time, right? So they can make the choice that works best for them. If you want to improve on the install logic that has worked well for OpenOffice for past releases, then that is wonderful as well. There is always room for improvement and patches are welcome. But my issues was more with your assertion that 3.4 should come with a gigantic disclaimer against production use. I think that is an irresponsible statement, considering you have not seen or tested a 3.4 candidate release yet. -Rob For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a productivity product installed. As a matter of policy, I would never silently uninstall anything. That is regardless of the presumed quality of the new release. My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of confidence (or hubris) might be. I am not presuming anything about the quality of any non-existent release. I am expressing a principle that does not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. [ ... ] I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob [ ... ]
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 17 December 2011 22:50, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr wrote: Hi, Le 17 déc. 11 à 23:26, Ross Gardler a écrit : Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or necessary. Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose, Well, it is not that bad. No it is not, it does seem to upset some, but then it's impossible not to upset someone. neither is Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is a good one. If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version pretends Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org ) is a fork Hmmm... Thanks, I'll put some more thought into this. Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi Ross, It's interesting to browse wikipedia pages named http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org; Change xx to your favorite language code, for example, el, which makes http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org; And you can not find Apache on the el page, can you? Now try: http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org Can you find Apache on these pages? That's why we should send an Open Letter with correct information and update to the world. Thanks, khirano -- khir...@apache.org OpenOffice.org[TM](incubating)|The Free and Open Productivity Suite Apache incubator http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 17 December 2011 17:14, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project set a tentative release time for OpenOffice.org Version 3.4 for the 1st Qtr of 2012. Thanks Drew, I like that. The only problem is there is no consensus at this point about branding/rebranding so I will make it: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project has tentatively identified the first quarter of 2012 for a Version 3.4 release. There is still time for it to be tweaked if it's really important, but note I just want a simple sentence not a 100 email argument about all the fine details. I'd rather my little blog post didn't detract too much from working towards that release. Ross
RE: A timeline for an Apache OO release
The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project has tentatively identified the first quarter of 2012 for a Version 3.4 release. I think I would prefer Apache OpenOffice v1.0
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 18/12/2011, at 7:58, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide when, if ever, to remove a previous version. The user is free to pick another directory at install time, right? So they can make the choice that works best for them. My (often faulty) memory of recent OOo installs on Windows is that I was not offered a choice of directory when using a standard (default) install. If you knew how (custom install), you could do it, but most users don't know that, and many have no clue which might work best for them because they don't know the potential consequences of their choices. --Jean
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 18/12/2011, at 9:56, Allen Pulsifer apulsi...@apache.org wrote: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project has tentatively identified the first quarter of 2012 for a Version 3.4 release. I think I would prefer Apache OpenOffice v1.0 That would totally confuse most of the current users of OOo, I think. --Jean
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
--- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto: Sure - if it is easier for us to include an existing feature, under an acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother re-writing it ? conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ? And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs had a famous quote about that that I don't remember very well ;-). I don't want anyone to get the idea that LibreOffice will be based on AOOI, and that this is going to be the rule. It's rather interesting that for AOO the OpenOffice.org legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy. LibreOffice instead seems to be more interested in showing independence from what would seem to have been the past oppressive Oracle/SUN regime. Again Steve Jobs had a good quote for this It's more fun to be a pirate than to join the navy. And then all this independence is somewhat fake in that LibreOffice seems condemned to carry OpenOffice.org LGPL3 headers unless they get new headers from AOO. Just thinking out loud :-P. Pedro.
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
Am 12/18/2011 01:08 AM, schrieb Jean Weber: On 18/12/2011, at 9:56, Allen Pulsiferapulsi...@apache.org wrote: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project has tentatively identified the first quarter of 2012 for a Version 3.4 release. I think I would prefer Apache OpenOffice v1.0 That would totally confuse most of the current users of OOo, I think. --Jean +1 This would indeed lead to confusion which is not necessary. We have many new things like Apache as new home. But the code is the same (even when we have to cleanup and rearrange some things), so the version numbering should remain. It shows a continuity of the weill-established software and not a new thing that appears from nowhere. Marcus
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 18 December 2011 00:08, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/12/2011, at 9:56, Allen Pulsifer apulsi...@apache.org wrote: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project has tentatively identified the first quarter of 2012 for a Version 3.4 release. I think I would prefer Apache OpenOffice v1.0 That would totally confuse most of the current users of OOo, I think. --Jean I agree. I'm trying to make things clearer, not more confusing. If the first release actually ends up being something other than Version 3.4 then my piece will have a minor historical error. I think I can live with that. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 12/18/2011 01:08 AM, schrieb Jean Weber: On 18/12/2011, at 9:56, Allen Pulsiferapulsi...@apache.org wrote: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project has tentatively identified the first quarter of 2012 for a Version 3.4 release. I think I would prefer Apache OpenOffice v1.0 That would totally confuse most of the current users of OOo, I think. --Jean +1 This would indeed lead to confusion which is not necessary. We have many new things like Apache as new home. But the code is the same (even when we have to cleanup and rearrange some things), so the version numbering should remain. It shows a continuity of the weill-established software and not a new thing that appears from nowhere. +1. I've been preparing the migrated www.openoffice.org - I am about to commit breadcrumbs and a top navigation plus the missing development and distribution projects. Regards, Dave
Re: PNG Security Vulnerability fixed in 3.3.0
Am 12/17/2011 12:38 AM, schrieb tora - Takamichi Akiyama: It seems nobody has answered so far. Does anyone have any information on this? CVE-2010-4253 Security Vulnerability in OpenOffice.org related to PNG file processing http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2010-4253.html That has been already fixed in 3.3.0, but not in 3.2.1. One globally operating company in Japan has made use of 3.2.1 and they are planning to spread it over their branches and local companies under their wing worldwide, more than 200 thousand PCs, all told. Multiple options are under evaluation: (a) Security Patch (this email's topic) - Installing the official release of OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 - Replacing one or a few .dll files with bug-fixed ones *IMHO* to create a patch or update for OpenOffice.org and to guarantee the binary compatibility, you need to use the original environment for developing, builing, testing. This environment is gone and cannot be brought back. Therefore this is not a possibility. The new way is to fix any new issue within the context of Apache OpenOffice. But I'm not a developer, so I can only guess that it's right what I've said. (b) Switch to LibreOffice (c) Something else Why not 3.3.0? They say 3.2.1 is conceptually stabler than 3.3.0 since 3.2.1 is a minor, bug-fixed version while 3.3.0 is a major version. In theory yes. But have they really tried this out? Have they proved for themselves that 3.2.1 is better for their business? If not and 3.3.0 is surprisingly better than first thought, then the answer could be very easy. ;-) Marcus
Cleanup of Docs section of OOo wiki?
Now that the OOo wiki has been migrated to Apache, is this a good time for me to start cleaning up the Docs section? Specifically, removing obsolete info (like references to Clayton and me as Docs Co-Leads and some of the info in the orientation pages for contributors to Docs). I could potentially do the same on the Docs portion of the migrated OOo website, if it's ready for that sort of cleanup. --Jean
Re: PNG Security Vulnerability fixed in 3.3.0
Hello; --- Ven 16/12/11, tora - Takamichi Akiyama t...@openoffice.org ha scritto: ... Why not 3.3.0? They say 3.2.1 is conceptually stabler than 3.3.0 since 3.2.1 is a minor, bug-fixed version while 3.3.0 is a major version. Unfortunately the legacy OpenOffice.org releases are unsupported. If you can live with unsupported versions then perhaps you should try the aOO nightly builds. Pedro.
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Um, are you expecting that the first podling release of binaries will not be a beta? I've learned to rely on testing, not expecting. Let's see what we find out from a good test pass. 3.4 has already been through one beta, but we have made significant changes in some areas, These areas will need to be tested more deeply. And we'll want to see if any critical bugs have been reported in from the earlier beta. I'm not a big fan of using beta releases as substitute for testing, though they are great for feature feedback. But the AOO 3.4 release is not going to differ much functionally from the earlier beta. So I think our emphasis should be testing and fixing bugs until 3.4 reaches a level of quality that we can be proud to release and recommend for use without hesitation. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 13:59 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide when, if ever, to remove a previous version. The user is free to pick another directory at install time, right? So they can make the choice that works best for them. If you want to improve on the install logic that has worked well for OpenOffice for past releases, then that is wonderful as well. There is always room for improvement and patches are welcome. But my issues was more with your assertion that 3.4 should come with a gigantic disclaimer against production use. I think that is an irresponsible statement, considering you have not seen or tested a 3.4 candidate release yet. -Rob For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a productivity product installed. As a matter of policy, I would never silently uninstall anything. That is regardless of the presumed quality of the new release. My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of confidence (or hubris) might be. I am not presuming anything about the quality of any non-existent release. I am expressing a principle that does not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences. [ ... ] I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob [ ... ]
Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
On 2011-12-17 12:00 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 17 December 2011 16:57, Donald Harbisondpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: A further, related question (I'm working on a blog piece) would we say Apache OpenOffice (incubating) plans to release a reference implementation of the OpenOffice.org suite in ..., or is some other phrasing preferred? What's your definition of a reference build? Would an official Apache release of OpenOffice 3.4 meet that definition? That's a good question and I think is probably what I'm asking ;-) I'm a little confused as to what brand the release will push, Apache OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org. The PPMC voted a while back to call their product Apache OpenOffice. I would expect the primary branding will be updated to reflect that in various places, including the main icons. I strongly urge the PPMC to consider continuing the OOo version numbers - 3.4 or 3.5 or the like. While many of us, as software engineers, have a detailed understanding of release number nuances, the vast majority of the rest of humanity does not have a clue. They'll expect - presuming we're showing them that we're the obvious next release of an OpenOffice.org-like product to install - to see something in the 3.x line. The most important thing that I see Ross asking for is our best projection at the big picture; the very basic bits of the marketing message. That's what needs to be told to the world. The rest is just details for the podling committers to continue to work out. (Obviously, immensely important and hard details! But still - mostly just details that the vast majority of humanity will never care about.) - Shane
Re: Cleanup of Docs section of OOo wiki?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:40, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Jean, On Dec 17, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Jean Weber wrote: Now that the OOo wiki has been migrated to Apache, is this a good time for me to start cleaning up the Docs section? Specifically, removing obsolete info (like references to Clayton and me as Docs Co-Leads and some of the info in the orientation pages for contributors to Docs). Certainly. JFDI rules. Heh. I was thinking more along the lines of will my edits disappear when something is updated? (And thus be a waste of my time.) Apparently this is not the case, so if/when I find a few spare minutes (pause for sounds of demented laughter) I shall charge ahead. Cheers, Jean (in hot, steamy, tropical Australia)
Re: Cleanup of Docs section of OOo wiki?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:40, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Jean, On Dec 17, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Jean Weber wrote: I could potentially do the same on the Docs portion of the migrated OOo website, if it's ready for that sort of cleanup. I was going to ask for help with support in an email. I just uploaded a topbar with breadcrumbs and navigation buttons on the top. It will take an hour for the changes to make it through to http://ooo-site.apache.org/ The download part is good. The http://ooo-site.apache.org/support/ and http://ooo-site.apache.org/documentation do need attention. Your help is very timely. You should be able to edit the pages using the Bookmarklet. https://cms.apache.org/#bookmark - login with your apache.org id. (This is new and looks very cool :-) I'm looking forward to getting stuck into some of that, as well as the wiki. --Jean
Re: svn commit: r1220323 - /incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/lib/view.pm
Thanks Joe! It looks like this one unlocked the site build! Regards, Dave On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:07 PM, j...@apache.org wrote: Author: joes Date: Sun Dec 18 02:07:45 2011 New Revision: 1220323 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1220323view=rev Log: trigger site build Modified: incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/lib/view.pm Modified: incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/lib/view.pm URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/lib/view.pm?rev=1220323r1=1220322r2=1220323view=diff == --- incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/lib/view.pm (original) +++ incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/lib/view.pm Sun Dec 18 02:07:45 2011 @@ -1,11 +1,9 @@ package view; -# # BUILD CONSTRAINT: all views must return $content, $extension. # additional return values (as seen below) are optional. However, # careful use of svn externals and dependency management in path.pm can # resolve most issues with this constraint. -# use strict; use warnings;
Re: svn commit: r1220324 - in /incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout: about.png intro.png
Hi Pedro, On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 02:16:34AM -, p...@apache.org wrote: Author: pfg Date: Sun Dec 18 02:16:34 2011 New Revision: 1220324 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1220324view=rev Log: An unprofessional attempt to update some logos. then I'm not sure if this should be done in trunk. I guess the nightly build will look unprofessional too. Modified: incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/about.png incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/intro.png Modified: incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/about.png URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/about.png?rev=1220324r1=1220323r2=1220324view=diff == Binary files - no diff available. Modified: incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/intro.png URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/intro.png?rev=1220324r1=1220323r2=1220324view=diff == Binary files - no diff available. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgp5LkvewAfYH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: svn commit: r1220324 - in /incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout: about.png intro.png
Hi Ariel; --- Sab 17/12/11, Ariel Constenla-Haile ha scritto: ... Author: pfg Date: Sun Dec 18 02:16:34 2011 New Revision: 1220324 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1220324view=rev Log: An unprofessional attempt to update some logos. then I'm not sure if this should be done in trunk. I guess the nightly build will look unprofessional too. No, i don't think it will. I only added the Apache Incubator logo in an empty corner, something that should've been done long ago. It is unprofessional in that it should've gone much further, effectively rebranding OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice, something that I will leave to true graphic professionals. So .. when is that logo contest starting? ;-). Pedro.
Re: svn commit: r1220324 - in /incubator/ooo/trunk/main/default_images/introabout: about.png intro.png
Hi Pedro, On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 07:25:46PM -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote: An unprofessional attempt to update some logos. then I'm not sure if this should be done in trunk. I guess the nightly build will look unprofessional too. No, i don't think it will. I only added the Apache Incubator logo in an empty corner, something that should've been done long ago. It is unprofessional in that it should've gone much further, effectively rebranding OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice, something that I will leave to true graphic professionals. So .. when is that logo contest starting? ;-). I'm not sure a contest is the best option here, may be just a call for designers. Last time, the contest ended with - IMO - an awful splash screen, compared to Stella's: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Art/Gallery/OOo3_Splash_Screen Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgptPoGHbeNUR.pgp Description: PGP signature
OpenOffice.org on Wikipedias in various languages
Hi all, FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice; redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org; :) OK. Now I encourage you to check the following pages. It's fun and very interesting to see what kind of OpenOffice.org logos they use on their pages. http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ast.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://fur.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://tg.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org On which pages above can you find Apache ? :) Thanks, khirano -- khir...@apache.org OpenOffice.org[TM](incubating)|The Free and Open Productivity Suite Apache incubator http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
