date:20120112

Hi,

--- Gio 12/1/12, Andrea Pescetti  ha scritto:
...
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
> modified
> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
> > Thank you for pointing this out.
> > This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache
> policies
> 
> Anyway this could be solved by the MPL 2.0 if it is really
> problematic: section 6 of MPL 1.1 allows to upgrade to MPL
> 2.0 and with MPL 2.0 "rather than exactly specifying the
> amount of time source code must be available, the source
> code must simply be made available when the executable is
> made available".
> 
> At least that is my reading of
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ.html
>

The MPL 2 is indeed much better than MPL 1.1 but it still
pretty much in Category B: I am wondering if they reinvented
the CDDL ;).

I am not sure the update is automatic.. I think the Rhino
project (which happens to be the only thing in that category
we have updated) hasn't decided if it will switch: but I
really don't know if or why they wouldn't do it.

Pedro.

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 00:23, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
  wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
 You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
 of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>>>
>>> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
>>> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
>>> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
>>> would be).
>>>
>>> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
>>> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
>>> cannot be certain.
>>>
>>
>> If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
>> to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
>> this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
>> policies.
>
> See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated
> on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a
> "no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs
> finishing.
>

 The thread went much further than what you quoted there, Ross,
 including the quote I gave where it was stated that this was OK.
>>>
>>> Really? Then markmail is not showing the full thread. Can you provide
>>> a direct link to that mail, all I am seeing is at
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g there is no OK in there.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything else in the ASF archves either, the start of the
>>> thread is at http://s.apache.org/B1L
>>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>
>> What I said in my earlier note -- the thread was partially on
>> legal-discuss and partially on ooo-dev.  Robert came over to ooo-dev
>> to continue the discussion directly with the project.  Probably the
>> best way to get it in coherent form, if your mail client doesn't piece
>> cross-list threads together, is to search MarkMail for "Clarification
>> on treatment of "weak copyleft" components"
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> I've read the thread that this search returns, but I don't see an "OK".
>
> I see some comments from Rob, which I do not agree with. Rob does not
> speak for the Legal Affairs committee, he speaks, as I do, as a well
> intentioned advisor. Even so I don't see him saying it is OK, I see
> things like:
>
> "Archiving the compressed source of weak copyleft dependencies in some
> sort of repository[1] is something that Apache will need to become
> comfortable with sometime soon"
>
> Note the future tense here - this is not currently something the ASF
> is comfortable with. Roberts personal opinion on whether this is
> necessary or not is irrelevant. It was said in reply to the VP Legal
> affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
> discouraged / not allowed."
>

You are putting words in Sam's mouth.The topic there was about
forking MPL components, i.e., having an Apache project act as a
maintainer of a fork of MPL and doing MPL development.I don't
believe the underlying issue in that exchange was where the MPL code
lived.  The issues was whether were were engaging in the development
of MPL code at Apache.  If anything, Same is adamant about saying the
location of the code is not the fundamental issue.  If that were the
case we'd just create a bunch of fictitious shell projects on Google
Code, put the code there, and voila, we have no category-b in our
project. But byte for byte, a release built on that model would be
identical to one where the components were stored in SVN.  And the
rights and obligations of users and downstream consumers would be
identical.

You might check out this thread for another angle on the subject, also
from Sam, dealing with dev tools:

http://markmail.org/message/jnuec5saca7wjoue

> Robert went on to say "But developing downstream derivative works of
> weak copyleft dependencies is likely to be a major issue" (I'm not
> clear if this is relevant here or not, so feel free to ignore if it is
> not)
>
> If there is an "OK" in there I can't see it.
>
> I'm afraid I still support Pedro's concerns. This is a grey area and
> we need clarification from legal-discuss. We need the above thread to
> be completed.
>
>> And if you can give me a link to the relevant Apache policy on this,
>> I'd much appreciate that as well.
>
> As we've said many times before the ASF is not a place where every
> rule is written down. This has its advantages and its disadvantages.
> The nearest I can provide is the one you linked to in your mail in the
> abo

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On 13 January 2012 00:23, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>>>  wrote:
 On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
>>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>>
>> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
>> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
>> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
>> would be).
>>
>> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
>> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
>> cannot be certain.
>>
>
> If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
> to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
> this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
> policies.

 See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated
 on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a
 "no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs
 finishing.

>>>
>>> The thread went much further than what you quoted there, Ross,
>>> including the quote I gave where it was stated that this was OK.
>>
>> Really? Then markmail is not showing the full thread. Can you provide
>> a direct link to that mail, all I am seeing is at
>> http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g there is no OK in there.
>>
>> I don't see anything else in the ASF archves either, the start of the
>> thread is at http://s.apache.org/B1L
>>
>> What am I missing?
>>
>
> What I said in my earlier note -- the thread was partially on
> legal-discuss and partially on ooo-dev.  Robert came over to ooo-dev
> to continue the discussion directly with the project.  Probably the
> best way to get it in coherent form, if your mail client doesn't piece
> cross-list threads together, is to search MarkMail for "Clarification
> on treatment of "weak copyleft" components"

OK, thanks.

I've read the thread that this search returns, but I don't see an "OK".

I see some comments from Rob, which I do not agree with. Rob does not
speak for the Legal Affairs committee, he speaks, as I do, as a well
intentioned advisor. Even so I don't see him saying it is OK, I see
things like:

"Archiving the compressed source of weak copyleft dependencies in some
sort of repository[1] is something that Apache will need to become
comfortable with sometime soon"

Note the future tense here - this is not currently something the ASF
is comfortable with. Roberts personal opinion on whether this is
necessary or not is irrelevant. It was said in reply to the VP Legal
affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
discouraged / not allowed."

Robert went on to say "But developing downstream derivative works of
weak copyleft dependencies is likely to be a major issue" (I'm not
clear if this is relevant here or not, so feel free to ignore if it is
not)

If there is an "OK" in there I can't see it.

I'm afraid I still support Pedro's concerns. This is a grey area and
we need clarification from legal-discuss. We need the above thread to
be completed.

> And if you can give me a link to the relevant Apache policy on this,
> I'd much appreciate that as well.

As we've said many times before the ASF is not a place where every
rule is written down. This has its advantages and its disadvantages.
The nearest I can provide is the one you linked to in your mail in the
above discussed thread. It can be found at
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

> It is rather hard to ask for a
> policy to be changed, or ask for an exception to a policy, or even to
> ask for a policy to be explained, if no one can actually find it.

Well you did OK in October, it's just that the issue was never
resolved by the legal-discuss list.

> Saying "we've never done that before" is not an argument from policy.

Rob, nobody has said that. What is being said, in Sam Ruby's words (VP
legal Affairs) is:

"That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed."

Note the word "normally" and note Sams requests for more info so he
can consider whether this is an appropriate edge case.

> It is an argument from inexperience.

Rob, I have been active in the ASF for over 10 years, I've been a
Member for the vast majority of that time. Furthermore I have spent a
significant amount of my *personal* time looking in the archives to
see if this specific issue has been addressed before. I did this
*before* posting here.

I've pointed to a thread in which the VP Legal Affairs has essentially
said, (and I paraphrase) "not norma

Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>
>> Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org
>> times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed.
>> Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the
>> issue status.
>
>
> Wasn't the cycle something like the following?
> - Developer thinks the bug is fixed and marks issue as RESOLVED FIXED.
> - QA engineer sets to VERIFIED, then to CLOSED.
>
> The workflow you describe seems overly complex, but indeed you may well be
> right: it wouldn't be the only overly complex procedure in the old
> OpenOffice.org...
>

The value of having a QA engineer test a bug fix is they also "test
around" the fix, to make sure related areas are not broken.   If we
want CRT, then maybe it is a good thing if the person doing the review
is not the same person who did the commit?


>
>> I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as
>> fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed.
>
>
> So the VERIFIED and CLOSED status would be for further verification? Or
> maybe for the moment when the fix can be independently verified in a
> developer snapshot? Leaving a resolved issue as STARTED seems like a
> suboptimal workflow.
>
> Regards,
>  Andrea.

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
  wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>
> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
> would be).
>
> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
> cannot be certain.
>

 If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
 to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
 this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
 policies.
>>>
>>> See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated
>>> on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a
>>> "no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs
>>> finishing.
>>>
>>
>> The thread went much further than what you quoted there, Ross,
>> including the quote I gave where it was stated that this was OK.
>
> Really? Then markmail is not showing the full thread. Can you provide
> a direct link to that mail, all I am seeing is at
> http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g there is no OK in there.
>
> I don't see anything else in the ASF archves either, the start of the
> thread is at http://s.apache.org/B1L
>
> What am I missing?
>

What I said in my earlier note -- the thread was partially on
legal-discuss and partially on ooo-dev.  Robert came over to ooo-dev
to continue the discussion directly with the project.  Probably the
best way to get it in coherent form, if your mail client doesn't piece
cross-list threads together, is to search MarkMail for "Clarification
on treatment of "weak copyleft" components"

And if you can give me a link to the relevant Apache policy on this,
I'd much appreciate that as well.  It is rather hard to ask for a
policy to be changed, or ask for an exception to a policy, or even to
ask for a policy to be explained, if no one can actually find it.
Saying "we've never done that before" is not an argument from policy.
It is an argument from inexperience.  If you'll acknowledge that there
is no policy for this, then that would serve to clear the air on that
particular point and then we could ask for some policy parameters in
this area.

> Ross
>
> Ross

Re: Extensions hosting

On 12 January 2012 19:01, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> Sorry to top post.
>
> A distinction exists between extensions.oo.o and extensions.services.oo.o.
>
> The first is part of the OOo-site and the second is the service.

Thanks Dave. Just so I'm absolutely clear does this change the
proposal other than the precise domain names allocated? I'm not sure
this distinction had been made before.

Specifically is the SF proposal to take both the site and the service?

Ross


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>
>> I'm attempting to summarise this thread and thus I'm top-posting on
>> the orginal opening thread.
>>
>> I will send the below text to the board for consideration. I'll
>> feedback here after the next board meeting (18th) or sooner if
>> possible.
>>
>> Dear Board,
>>
>> The Apache Open Office project needs to stabilise the hosting of their
>> extensions.openoffice.org service. The code needs updating and
>> bandwidth requirements need to be addressed.
>>
>> Gav, on behalf of the infra team, has offered to move the server to
>> ASF hardware and stabilise the code. Longer term Gav indicated that
>> his desire was to turn the service into a meta-data hosting service
>> whereby extensions could be discovered via extensions.openoffice.,org
>> but hosted in third party locations.
>>
>> This plan requires the hosting non-apache software (including closed
>> source) on ASF hardware. This was approved by the board with
>> responsibility for resolving the IP issues being delegated to the IPMC
>> (http://s.apache.org/fO - members only link).
>>
>> In the meantime Sourceforge have offered to help, initially through an
>> approach to Rob Weir of the AOO project and then through myself. I
>> took this proposal (via infra@ who requested the PPMC bring it to the
>> boards attention) to the AOO dev project for discussion. The thread
>> can be found at http://s.apache.org/sz6 (public) - the first post in
>> that thread includes the proposal from Jeff Drobnick (President and
>> CEO of Geeknet media, it also includes a number of clarifications from
>> Roberto Gallopini of Geeknet. I've tried to summarise for you here.
>>
>> After a long discussion the AOO podling has reached a consensus that
>> the best way forward would be to accept the proposal from Sourceforge
>> as a short term solution whilst working towards the meta-data site for
>> the long term. The PPMC feels that moving the service to a non-ASF
>> host now will minimise disruption for extensions developers and
>> end-users who are unwilling or unable to conform to ASF policy in the
>> long term. Similarly the PPMC feels there is a sufficiently large
>> number of edge cases to make changes in policy more complex than is
>> necessary since it is the PPMCs desire to provide an "approved" list
>> of extensions which are expected to conform to existing ASF IP
>> policies, whilst also enabling third parties to host their own
>> extensions sites that users can choose to access via a meta-data
>> service.
>>
>> We have assurances from SF that they are not interested in locking the
>> AOO project to their hosted services.  Members of the AOO PPMC will
>> have shell access to the system and no attempt will be made by SF to
>> own any of the IP involved.
>>
>> SF reserve the right to serve advertising on the downloads site (and
>> possibly on the extensions site, this needs to be clarified).
>> Downloads would be served from the existing SF mirror network.
>>
>> It is possible for AOO to point to an intermediate page giving users
>> the option of visiting other extensions sites if required. That is
>> extensions.openoffice.org could point to an ASF hosted web page
>> listing multiple third party sites, one of which would be the SF
>> hosted service. Consequently, if necessary it is possible for the PPMC
>> to move hosting to a SF but not to point extensions.openoffice.org
>> there.
>>
>> It is hoped that later releases of AOO will include the ability to
>> search for extensions via a meta-data service managed by the AOO
>> project. At this point extensions.openoffice.org would return to ASF
>> hardware. It is expected that the SF hosted extensions repository will
>> continue to exist and will be one of the first repositories from which
>> users will be able to download non-ASF extensions.
>>
>> This proposal raises a few interesting policy questions. Therefore I
>> would like to ask for guidance on how best to help the AOO project
>> realise this objective. A few questions that come to mind are:
>>
>> Will it be necessary to draw up an MoU with SF? If so what are the key
>> points the board would like to see covered?
>>
>> Will it be sufficient for the PPMC to work with SF to ensure the
>> extensions site they provide respects the existing trademark policy?
>> (bearing in mind that we will eventually be moving
>> extensions.openoffice.org back to ASF hardware)
>>
>> Would the board prefer it if extensions.openoffice.

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>>>  wrote:
 On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:

 ...

> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.

 This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
 are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
 one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
 would be).

 As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
 am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
 cannot be certain.

>>>
>>> If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
>>> to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
>>> this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
>>> policies.
>>
>> See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated
>> on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a
>> "no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs
>> finishing.
>>
>
> The thread went much further than what you quoted there, Ross,
> including the quote I gave where it was stated that this was OK.

Really? Then markmail is not showing the full thread. Can you provide
a direct link to that mail, all I am seeing is at
http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g there is no OK in there.

I don't see anything else in the ASF archves either, the start of the
thread is at http://s.apache.org/B1L

What am I missing?

Ross

Ross

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
 You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
 of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>>>
>>> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
>>> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
>>> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
>>> would be).
>>>
>>> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
>>> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
>>> cannot be certain.
>>>
>>
>> If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
>> to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
>> this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
>> policies.
>
> See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated
> on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a
> "no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs
> finishing.
>

The thread went much further than what you quoted there, Ross,
including the quote I gave where it was stated that this was OK.

-Rob

> Ross
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
>>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>>
>> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
>> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
>> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
>> would be).
>>
>> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
>> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
>> cannot be certain.
>>
>
> If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
> to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
> this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
> policies.

See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated
on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a
"no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs
finishing.

Ross


-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On 12 January 2012 19:59, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
> ...

...

>> I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can
>> state what the policy issue is.  I simply don't see any
>> problem here.  We're not including category-b source code
>> in our release, period.
>>
>
> I am really not going into this discussion with you again.

I seem to have dropped into this thread in the middle as my name was
mentioned, if I have misunderstood some important context I apologise.

Rob, didn't you already discuss this on the legal-discuss list? Didn't
you already get answers to the issues that Pedro raises?

See http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g

Note that in this thread you asked if the intention of the policy was:

"4) Downstream consumer would need to make extra effort to retrieve and
modify the source of the MPL components, since we're not including the
source."

To which Sam Ruby (VP Legal Affairs) said "Yup."

You went on to ask:

"Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that
we support.  And in several cases we have patches the original source.
 Is this a problem?"

Sam responded "That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed.  Why can't the
patches be contributed back to the original projects?"

You suggested using apache-extras instead of our SVN, Sam responded:

"Apache-Extras was not intended as a means to bypass Apache policies."

You asked:

"(Or back to an earlier note, is there any problem with having the
build script automatically download such 3rd party dependencies?)"

Sam replied "Automatically is typically the hang-up in discussions
such as these,
but a specific exemption for well-disclosed sources to despondencies
which are distributed with the project could be discussed."

In this exchange Sam asked for some clarifications so that he could
consider whether an exemption to policy would be granted. The thread
never really reached a conclusion.

At this point in time it is my opinion that Pedro is correct in
raising this issue. Either the PPMC needs to complete the discussion
Rob started on legal-discuss or the solution Pedro is suggesting
should be implemented.

Ross

Re: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
 wrote:
>
> Hi *,
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:31:20PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> for the dev builds I plan to provide (asap) I have simply used
>> Drew's proposals, added some of by my own and have built a Mac
>> version.
>>
>> I have some minor problems with the OOo-Dev dmg installer background
>> images where I am working on. But ou can get a first impression how
>> would look like under
>>
>> Backing window + About box
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/backing_window-about.png
>>
>> Intro image
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/intro.png
>>
>> MacOS dmg background
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/mac_install_dmg.png
>> well the quality of this image is too bad right now and I will try
>> to improve it. But I know Drew will give me support ;-)
>>
>> Juergen
>
>
> they look nice. I wonder if "Incubating" is required there. This is an
> Apache jargon, I doubt it would have any sense for English speaking
> users; and more problematic for non-English speaking user: the text is
> not localized. IMO "Incubating" only adds more confusion to the already
> existing confusion in our user base. If this is not an Apache
> requirement, it would be nice to remove it from the logos.
>

I was thinking something similar.   If we can leave "incubating" out
of the logo, and just give the required language, in text, in the
dialog, then we do not need to change the logo when we graduate.  I
don't think it makes sense to mix the "status" of the project with the
"brand" of the project.  The status of a podling is meant to let users
and visitors to our website know that the project may not have all the
qualities of a TLP at Apache, in terms of maturity.  But that is not
our brand.

> Reading http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
> it is not very clear to me:
>
> Naming
> After a podling has been approved, the lists are created, and the
> initial code drop has commenced, the podling MUST be referred to as
> Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention that the project is under Incubation.
> Suitable mentions include:
> Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"; URL
> Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache
> Software Foundation.
> Other references may only be used upon prior approval by the Incubator
> PMC. These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first reference
> in a document.
>
>
> Incubator Logo
> Podlings websites SHOULD contain the Apache Incubator Project logo as
> sign of affiliation.
>
>
> I understand this as:
>
> We have to MENTION that the project is under Incubation, this does not
> mean to put "Incubating" in the logo:
>
> * the splash screen already says AOO is incubating in the text "Build
>  contributed..."
> * The can be done in the About dialog edit field
> * etc etc
>
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>
> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
> would be).
>
> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
> cannot be certain.
>
> If you want an official statement from legal you have to ask
> legal-discuss@ about the specific case in hand.
>

Should mention that the thread I quoted before was from a thread on
legal-discuss.  ooo-dev was cc'ed, and at some point legal-discuss was
dropped from the thread.  But we did exactly what you suggest, and we
did it back in October.

Again, if anyone feels like a repeat, then go for it.

> Ross

Status of OOo NetBeans Plugin

2012-01-12 Thread Carl Marcum


Hi all,
I've seen mentioned in another thread, the OOo NetBeans plugin was to be 
part of the SGA, but not yet available. Does anyone know the status of 
the code, or when we should see it?


Best regards,
Carl

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>
> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
> would be).
>
> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
> cannot be certain.
>

If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love
to have a link, for the record.  Or, a even a cogent argument for why
this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license
policies.

> If you want an official statement from legal you have to ask
> legal-discuss@ about the specific case in hand.
>

If others have doubt, they are welcome to chase after this.

> Ross

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir  wrote:

...

> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.

This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing
would be).

As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I
am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I
cannot be certain.

If you want an official statement from legal you have to ask
legal-discuss@ about the specific case in hand.

Ross

Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice

2012-01-12 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org
times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed.
Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the
issue status.


Wasn't the cycle something like the following?
- Developer thinks the bug is fixed and marks issue as RESOLVED FIXED.
- QA engineer sets to VERIFIED, then to CLOSED.

The workflow you describe seems overly complex, but indeed you may well 
be right: it wouldn't be the only overly complex procedure in the old 
OpenOffice.org...



I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as
fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed.


So the VERIFIED and CLOSED status would be for further verification? Or 
maybe for the moment when the fix can be independently verified in a 
developer snapshot? Leaving a resolved issue as STARTED seems like a 
suboptimal workflow.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal of GPL'd modules

2012-01-12 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 10/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 04/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

After coordinating with Gianluca about some details, I've just opened
the issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117

As you can see at the link above, we won't get an answer before the end
of 2011. This is reasonable, the issue is complex


And, always at the link above, you can now see that it seems there's 
enough consensus for approving the bundle of GPL dictionaries; unless 
some last-minute objections extend the discussions, the final approval 
will happen next week.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

2012-01-12 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Pedro Giffuni wrote:

--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:

Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified
files available electronically for 12 months.

Thank you for pointing this out.
This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache policies


Anyway this could be solved by the MPL 2.0 if it is really problematic: 
section 6 of MPL 1.1 allows to upgrade to MPL 2.0 and with MPL 2.0 
"rather than exactly specifying the amount of time source code must be 
available, the source code must simply be made available when the 
executable is made available".


At least that is my reading of
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ.html

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Seeking Bugzilla Admin Volunteers

2012-01-12 Thread Herbert Duerr


Hi Rob,


So if you want to be on the initial batch, please respond to this note
and let me know what your Bugzilla ID is.


Count me in. My bugzilla id is "h...@apache.org".

Herbert

Repository for documentation

2012-01-12 Thread Juan C. Sanz

In the old infrastructure we used to put the published documentation 
chapters in a place that we used to call documents &settings. Now I can 
access the documents in this URL http://openoffice.org/downloads/es/. 
How can I access there to put new documents or update them? Is it the 
right place to store documents to be linked from web pages or there are 
a better repository to store them?

Regards
Juan C. Sanz
Spanish documentation team

[NIGHTLY BUILD]

2012-01-12 Thread Andrew Rist


Andre ,

I think one of the fixes you made to main/vcl/Library_vclplug_gtk.mk is 
breaking the build on the buildbot.
see 
view-source:http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/buildlogs/main/vcl/unxlngx6.pro/misc/logs/prj.txt 




   cd .. && make  -r -j1
   [ clean  ] ERROR: Please give only libary basenames to
   gb_LinkTarget_add_external_libs
   [ clean  ] ERROR:(no prefixes -l% or lib%, no suffixes %.so or
   %.lib)
   [ clean  ] ERROR:libraries given:  -pthread -L/lib -ldbus-glib-1
   -ldbus-1 -lpthread -lgobject-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglib-2.0
   [ clean  ] ERROR:offending: -ldbus-glib-1 -ldbus-1 -lpthread
   -lgobject-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglib-2.0
   
/home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly/build/main/vcl/Library_vclplug_gtk.mk:59:
   ***   .  Stop.
   dmake:  Error code 2, while making 'all'

Andrew

AOOo in Debian/Ubuntu (Was: Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org)

2012-01-12 Thread Claudio Filho

Hi

2012/1/8 Michael Stahl :
> in this case i guess it's at the discretion of the distributions which of
> the 2 successors of the deceased OpenOffice.org they transition to (and
> given the lack of a release from Apache OpenOffice it shouldn't surprise
> anybody that currently LibreOffice is the more popular transition target).

Your vision point is correct, Michael, and more. How in Debian, that
is the base of many distros, removed the OOo based in two points:
1) doubt about the future of OOo;
2) a minimal team to maintain the package;

was more easy to migrate to LibO. Today, only René, a Debian
Developer, maintains the package there. Some time ago, i started the
study about the packaging process, but today i stopped it.

I think that if we show a stable package and adjust the build process
to Debian, i believe that we can return to it, as more one
package/project, giving for all derivated distros the AOOo again.

Claudio

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website
>> stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in
>> incompatible licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed
>> documentation.  Ditto for the wiki.  Ditto for extensions site.
>>  These are all hosted by the Apache, on behalf of the project,
>> but they are not part of our releases.  Are you saying SVN
>> must be cleaned of all of that, even if it is not part of our
>> releases?
>>
>
> I certainly had understood the policy for website, Wiki and
> even the extensions site is that we shouldn't be hosting
> copyleft content. There might be a transitory situation during
> incubation and some things are still to be decided but even you
> have clearly stood in the position where any new content in the
> Wiki, etc should be under AL2.
>

My point about website content being ALv2 was to give us the
flexibility of including website content in a future release.  Even
online documentation might have a role if it could be bundled in a
release, since that would allow downstream consumers to modify that
documentation website and reuse it for their products.  But it still
comes down to the question of what is in a release.

>>
>> I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can
>> state what the policy issue is.  I simply don't see any
>> problem here.  We're not including category-b source code
>> in our release, period.
>>
>
> I am really not going into this discussion with you again.
>
> I think the issue is very easy to resolve: drop the
> tarballs from SVN and provide sufficient instructions so
> that the people doing the builds can download the tarballs
> themselves: we even have nice "fetch_tarball.sh" script to
> do just that.
>

The advice we've received in the past is that no policy issue related
to a release is resolved simply by moving code.  Back up and look at
the downstream consumer, the person receiving a release. How do we
feature AL as the default?  How are we ensuring that category-b is
included only by their explicit choice, rather than automatically?
How are we ensuring that the downstream consumer has proper notice of
the licenses and notices relevant to the code that they are
downloading in our releases?   How are we avoiding forking MPL
components or doing further development work on them?  How are we
making an effort to push patches upstream?  Those are the things we
should be careful about.   But in an automated script, whether it
downloads MPL tarballs from an Apache server or an Apache Extras, I
simply don't see any policy concern one way or another there.

On the other hand, I do see relevant technical issues, including how
do we ensure that we can maintain prior releases, including via
security patches, if our binary releases are based on code that is
scattered all over the web and which could disappear tomorrow based on
the whim of other less stable OSS maintainers, or based on
corporations merging or existing the business.  I think the only
prudent thing we can do is maintain a copy of all of our dependencies.

Another way to think of it is this: the rights and obligations of a
downstream consumer are invariant over the choice of where the
category-b code is downloaded from.   Would you agree with that much?
 If so, I don't see any basis for a policy distinction purely based on
the location of the downloaded code.

> Pedro.
>

Re: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

2012-01-12 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

Hi *,

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:31:20PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> for the dev builds I plan to provide (asap) I have simply used
> Drew's proposals, added some of by my own and have built a Mac
> version.
> 
> I have some minor problems with the OOo-Dev dmg installer background
> images where I am working on. But ou can get a first impression how
> would look like under
> 
> Backing window + About box
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/backing_window-about.png
> 
> Intro image
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/intro.png
> 
> MacOS dmg background
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/mac_install_dmg.png
> well the quality of this image is too bad right now and I will try
> to improve it. But I know Drew will give me support ;-)
> 
> Juergen

they look nice. I wonder if "Incubating" is required there. This is an
Apache jargon, I doubt it would have any sense for English speaking
users; and more problematic for non-English speaking user: the text is
not localized. IMO "Incubating" only adds more confusion to the already
existing confusion in our user base. If this is not an Apache 
requirement, it would be nice to remove it from the logos.

Reading http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
it is not very clear to me:

Naming
After a podling has been approved, the lists are created, and the
initial code drop has commenced, the podling MUST be referred to as
Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention that the project is under Incubation.
Suitable mentions include:
Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"; URL
Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache
Software Foundation.
Other references may only be used upon prior approval by the Incubator
PMC. These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first reference
in a document.

Incubator Logo
Podlings websites SHOULD contain the Apache Incubator Project logo as
sign of affiliation.

I understand this as:

We have to MENTION that the project is under Incubation, this does not
mean to put "Incubating" in the logo:

* the splash screen already says AOO is incubating in the text "Build
  contributed..."
* The can be done in the About dialog edit field
* etc etc

Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

pgpCoDR6x3NSH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)


--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
...
> 
> If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website
> stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in
> incompatible licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed
> documentation.  Ditto for the wiki.  Ditto for extensions site.
>  These are all hosted by the Apache, on behalf of the project,
> but they are not part of our releases.  Are you saying SVN
> must be cleaned of all of that, even if it is not part of our
> releases?
>

I certainly had understood the policy for website, Wiki and
even the extensions site is that we shouldn't be hosting
copyleft content. There might be a transitory situation during
incubation and some things are still to be decided but even you
have clearly stood in the position where any new content in the
Wiki, etc should be under AL2.

> 
> I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can
> state what the policy issue is.  I simply don't see any
> problem here.  We're not including category-b source code
> in our release, period.
>

I am really not going into this discussion with you again.

I think the issue is very easy to resolve: drop the
tarballs from SVN and provide sufficient instructions so
that the people doing the builds can download the tarballs
themselves: we even have nice "fetch_tarball.sh" script to
do just that.

Pedro.

Re: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

2012-01-12 Thread Larry Gusaas


On 2012-01-12 1:25 PM  Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

  3.3 I like the use of the OO Orb, although that has not been discussed as an 
element of branding.  I would like to see it used in many places, including 
insignias and file-association icons, where it can be very small yet clearly 
recognizable.  There is a matter of asserting trademark for it, though.


The OOo Orb was part of the branding change imposed on OOo by Oracle, along with the colourless 
file icons. I preferred the previous versions that had the birds without an orb


--
_

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - 
Edgard Varese

Re: Copyright statements and some other stuff

2012-01-12 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

Hi Jürgen,

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:29:50PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> 3. Values in minor.mk
> The main/solenv/inc/minor.mk contains several values that have
> influence on several places.
> 
> For example the name of the download files, the content of the About
> dialog, etc.
> 
> The value are current:
> RSCVERSION=340
> RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584)
> BUILD=9584
> LAST_MINOR=m1
> SOURCEVERSION=OOO340
> 
> I think we should define new values and the question is how we want
> to use this values.
> 
> I would propose the following for the short term:
> 
> RSCVERSION=340 -> we keep this for now because are working on an AOO
> 3.4 and we will change it when we work on 4.0 or 3.4.1 accordingly
> 
> RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584) -> here i am not sure how we should
> handle this. We have currently no similar build process that we had
> in the past. I would propose a value like "340 (Rev.: r1230461)"
> where we change the revision number dynamically.
>
> 
> BUILD -> don't have a good idea yet
> LAST_MINOR -> the same, I haven't a good idea yet.

I've been working on this http://s.apache.org/X2B
and in the meantime found a solution, I'll post something on the
weekend.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpT5b33kiUgr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
>> modified
>> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
>> >
>> > Thank you for pointing this out.
>> > This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache
>> > policies and a good reason to avoid carrying such
>> > code in our
>> > repository.
>> >
>>
>> I don't see the issue here.  Can you point me to what
>> Apache policy is violated here?  Or argue how downstream
>> consumer of our releases will be harmed or confused by this?
>>
>
> We never impose a condition such of "make your modified
> files available electronically for 12 months". I surely
> don't expect anyone doing a SVN checkout to have to do
> that.
>

Again, where is the policy issue?   The category-b code is not in our
released source packages.  We're not imposing any extra conditions on
downstream consumers.  We're ensuring that the product can build and
run without any category-b modules.  So show me where the problem is.

Remember, the category-b prohibition is for source packages.  SVN is
not our source package.  A subset of files in SVN will comprise our
source release.

If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website stuff that
is now there, has tons of content now that is in incompatible
licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed documentation.  Ditto
for the wiki.  Ditto for extensions site.  These are all hosted by the
Apache, on behalf of the project, but they are not part of our
releases.  Are you saying SVN must be cleaned of all of that, even if
it is not part of our releases?

>
>> >>
>> >> So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:
>> >>
>> >
>> > I do see a problem and unless some higher power from
>> > legal@ OKs it, my vote for a release or project
>> > graduation will be -1 (binding), on the basis that
>> > if we do this once we will likely be perpetuating
>> > such practice in all releases.
>> >
>>
>> We already had this discussion before.  My impression
>> was it was resolved.
>> See:  http://markmail.org/message/2o42tzsw24z5znst
>>
> In that same thread the situation is left mostly
> unresolved. Ross in particular said:
>

You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal.  Robert is a member
of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.

> "That is not my understanding. As far as I am aware
> automated downloading of incompatible licensed coffee
> is not acceptable."
>
> Furthermore there is a specidif statement that we do
> have to get the SVN tree clean of incompatible
> licenses (I never manage to find that link when I
> need it).
>
>> In any case, there are no vetos on release votes.
>>
>
> It does mean legal or someone else will have to look
> at it and solve it, which is what I am asking for.
> Just thought I should save you from surprises later
> on and avoid delays.
>

I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can state what the
policy issue is.  I simply don't see any problem here.  We're not
including category-b source code in our release, period.

-Rob

> cheers,
>
> Pedro.

RE: Images in AOO Blog Posts

2012-01-12 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Yes, the imported image works just great.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 07:55
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Images in AOO Blog Posts

[ ... ]

OK.  I saved the image from the forums to disk,and then imported into
the Roller media library.  Hopefully it works better with I.E. privacy
settings now.

-Rob

[ ... ]

RE: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

2012-01-12 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Drew,

  1. I notice that Jürgen's MAC image still has "Open.Office.org" in places 
(e.g., under the Orb and in the title of the screen).  I like it too.

  2. The new install images are interesting.  When you are satisfied with the 
set, I am going to add the applicable ones (preferably the PNGs) to my QA 
review of all of the install images that happen on Windows, so they can be seen 
in the context in which those users will see them.  (I am not sure whether the 
same !-image inclusions can appear on different wiki pages and work or whether 
each page needs its own set of resources.  I will test that today.)

  3. Second-order observations on the install-images.zip.  I like these 
offerings and the best first thing is to have the images where they can be 
reviewed and compared and revised.  Looking ahead:

  3.1 I notice some inconsistencies in the use of the logo and other branding 
elements among the different elements.

  3.2 Something is definitely needed for the smaller images that don't have 
many pixels in which to be clearly presented.

  3.3 I like the use of the OO Orb, although that has not been discussed as an 
element of branding.  I would like to see it used in many places, including 
insignias and file-association icons, where it can be very small yet clearly 
recognizable.  There is a matter of asserting trademark for it, though.

  3.4 The osxdndinstall image is wonderfully clean.  

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:01
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:31 +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
[ ... ]
> 
> MacOS dmg background
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/mac_install_dmg.png
> well the quality of this image is too bad right now and I will try to 
> improve it. But I know Drew will give me support ;-)
> 
Hi Juergen

I really like the MAC image..nice.

Want to add the hc image files also, before I put this to the wiki but
here is what is on my machine right this minute: 

http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/install-images.zip

Changed the text on the Intro screen.
The base logo file is refined IMO, did not included the actual svg file
for that in this zip file, will add it separately to the wiki, directly.

anyway - would welcome feed back on the images as they are.

//drew

Seeking Bugzilla Admin Volunteers

As far as I have been able to determine, no one in the project seems
to have the ability to do anything in our Bugzilla instance beyond the
basic operations that any member of the public is able to do.   We
need to get a handful of people to have some elevated permissions to
edit bugs, edit components, etc., so we can manage the quality process
for the upcoming 3.4 release.

I'll enter a JIRA issue asking that myself, and whichever other
committers want to be included, be added to a group that will have the
following additional Bugzilla permissions:

- editbugs
- editcomponents
- canconfirm
- editkeywords

Having these additional permissions will especially be critical for
those engaging in QA, I think.

I'm not sure if Infra will do it (security concerns, etc.), but it
would also be good to have one or two admin-level committers, with the
editusers permission, so they can enable the above permissions for
other users without going through Infra.

So if you want to be on the initial batch, please respond to this note
and let me know what your Bugzilla ID is. This is not necessarily the
same as your Apache ID.   And if you don't yet have a Bugzilla account
for the project, you can request one here:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/

Thanks!

-Rob

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)


--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
...
> 
> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
> modified
> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
> >
> > Thank you for pointing this out.
> > This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache
> > policies and a good reason to avoid carrying such
> > code in our
> > repository.
> >
> 
> I don't see the issue here.  Can you point me to what
> Apache policy is violated here?  Or argue how downstream
> consumer of our releases will be harmed or confused by this?
> 

We never impose a condition such of "make your modified
files available electronically for 12 months". I surely
don't expect anyone doing a SVN checkout to have to do
that.


> >>
> >> So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:
> >>
> >
> > I do see a problem and unless some higher power from
> > legal@ OKs it, my vote for a release or project
> > graduation will be -1 (binding), on the basis that
> > if we do this once we will likely be perpetuating
> > such practice in all releases.
> >
> 
> We already had this discussion before.  My impression
> was it was resolved.
> See:  http://markmail.org/message/2o42tzsw24z5znst
>
In that same thread the situation is left mostly
unresolved. Ross in particular said:

"That is not my understanding. As far as I am aware
automated downloading of incompatible licensed coffee
is not acceptable."

Furthermore there is a specidif statement that we do
have to get the SVN tree clean of incompatible
licenses (I never manage to find that link when I
need it).
 
> In any case, there are no vetos on release votes.
>

It does mean legal or someone else will have to look
at it and solve it, which is what I am asking for.
Just thought I should save you from surprises later
on and avoid delays.

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: WaE: sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx

2012-01-12 Thread Pavel Janík

> Thx for the catch.
> 
> Just double-checked with Armin - the variables shall be removed.

Done.
-- 
Pavel Janík

Re: Extensions hosting

2012-01-12 Thread Dave Fisher

Sorry to top post.

A distinction exists between extensions.oo.o and extensions.services.oo.o.

The first is part of the OOo-site and the second is the service.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:

> I'm attempting to summarise this thread and thus I'm top-posting on
> the orginal opening thread.
> 
> I will send the below text to the board for consideration. I'll
> feedback here after the next board meeting (18th) or sooner if
> possible.
> 
> Dear Board,
> 
> The Apache Open Office project needs to stabilise the hosting of their
> extensions.openoffice.org service. The code needs updating and
> bandwidth requirements need to be addressed.
> 
> Gav, on behalf of the infra team, has offered to move the server to
> ASF hardware and stabilise the code. Longer term Gav indicated that
> his desire was to turn the service into a meta-data hosting service
> whereby extensions could be discovered via extensions.openoffice.,org
> but hosted in third party locations.
> 
> This plan requires the hosting non-apache software (including closed
> source) on ASF hardware. This was approved by the board with
> responsibility for resolving the IP issues being delegated to the IPMC
> (http://s.apache.org/fO - members only link).
> 
> In the meantime Sourceforge have offered to help, initially through an
> approach to Rob Weir of the AOO project and then through myself. I
> took this proposal (via infra@ who requested the PPMC bring it to the
> boards attention) to the AOO dev project for discussion. The thread
> can be found at http://s.apache.org/sz6 (public) - the first post in
> that thread includes the proposal from Jeff Drobnick (President and
> CEO of Geeknet media, it also includes a number of clarifications from
> Roberto Gallopini of Geeknet. I've tried to summarise for you here.
> 
> After a long discussion the AOO podling has reached a consensus that
> the best way forward would be to accept the proposal from Sourceforge
> as a short term solution whilst working towards the meta-data site for
> the long term. The PPMC feels that moving the service to a non-ASF
> host now will minimise disruption for extensions developers and
> end-users who are unwilling or unable to conform to ASF policy in the
> long term. Similarly the PPMC feels there is a sufficiently large
> number of edge cases to make changes in policy more complex than is
> necessary since it is the PPMCs desire to provide an "approved" list
> of extensions which are expected to conform to existing ASF IP
> policies, whilst also enabling third parties to host their own
> extensions sites that users can choose to access via a meta-data
> service.
> 
> We have assurances from SF that they are not interested in locking the
> AOO project to their hosted services.  Members of the AOO PPMC will
> have shell access to the system and no attempt will be made by SF to
> own any of the IP involved.
> 
> SF reserve the right to serve advertising on the downloads site (and
> possibly on the extensions site, this needs to be clarified).
> Downloads would be served from the existing SF mirror network.
> 
> It is possible for AOO to point to an intermediate page giving users
> the option of visiting other extensions sites if required. That is
> extensions.openoffice.org could point to an ASF hosted web page
> listing multiple third party sites, one of which would be the SF
> hosted service. Consequently, if necessary it is possible for the PPMC
> to move hosting to a SF but not to point extensions.openoffice.org
> there.
> 
> It is hoped that later releases of AOO will include the ability to
> search for extensions via a meta-data service managed by the AOO
> project. At this point extensions.openoffice.org would return to ASF
> hardware. It is expected that the SF hosted extensions repository will
> continue to exist and will be one of the first repositories from which
> users will be able to download non-ASF extensions.
> 
> This proposal raises a few interesting policy questions. Therefore I
> would like to ask for guidance on how best to help the AOO project
> realise this objective. A few questions that come to mind are:
> 
> Will it be necessary to draw up an MoU with SF? If so what are the key
> points the board would like to see covered?
> 
> Will it be sufficient for the PPMC to work with SF to ensure the
> extensions site they provide respects the existing trademark policy?
> (bearing in mind that we will eventually be moving
> extensions.openoffice.org back to ASF hardware)
> 
> Would the board prefer it if extensions.openoffice.org were to
> redirection to foo.sourceforge.net? (either automatically or via an
> information page) If so would this change the answer to the MoU
> question above?
> 
> Will this simplify the AOO ability to address IP and fundraising
> concerns generated by non-ASF code and donations requests found on
> extensions.apache.org?
> 
> Does the board have any concerns about advertising a

Re: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots

Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2012 schrieb Claudio Filho :
> Hi Jürgen
>
> 2012/1/12 Jürgen Schmidt :
>> I am wondering a little bit because I thought the Brazilian community had
>> switched to LibreOffice completely.
>
> *Completely* is a lot strong, Jürgen, but in general had a
> misalignment about what some of us (and now, talking only in my name)
> believed to be a "more free way" and was exactly to other side, with
> many strange situations and more yet about the acceptation of some
> events, so, a lot of members of TDF simply abandoned that project.
>
>> But I am more than happy that you
>> request pt-BR and I will include it. I know what a great job you and
others
>> have done in Brazil and I would be happy to continue our relations in the
>> future.
>
> As i told in other emails, i wait to help as possible.
>
>> But hey we will support all languages where we have localizations for.
>
> I really believe in that! ;-)
>
>> Anybody is invited to help with setting up the pootle framework and
working
>> on a procedure how we can handle the translations in the future. Here we
>> have still some work to do ;-)
>
> Maybe i can help in some thing in this part. I need read more the wiki
> and understand better the process.
>

Your are not allone here ;-)

Juergen

Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
> ...
>> >
>> > I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
>> > what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
>> > Category B software in their repositories (feel free
>> > to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
>> > something we will have to think about.
>> >
>>
>> It is a service to downstream consumers.  Just as we
>> aggregate licenses and notices to make it easier for
>> them, we also aggregate the optional category-b code
>> tarballs.
>>
>
> It is actually a disservice. Some of those tarballs are
> obsolete and carry known security risks.
>

Whether we have such tarballs in SVN or whether we have our build
scripts point to an externally hosted tarball of the same version, the
security issue is the same, and orthogonal.   However we access the
files we are responsible for ensuring the end product is secure.

>> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified
>> files available electronically for 12 months.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out.
> This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache policies
> and a good reason to avoid carrying such code in our
> repository.
>

I don't see the issue here.  Can you point me to what Apache policy is
violated here?  Or argue how downstream consumer of our releases will
be harmed or confused by this?

>>
>> So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:
>>
>
> I do see a problem and unless some higher power from
> legal@ OKs it, my vote for a release or project
> graduation will be -1 (binding), on the basis that
> if we do this once we will likely be perpetuating
> such practice in all releases.
>

We already had this discussion before.  My impression was it was
resolved. See:  http://markmail.org/message/2o42tzsw24z5znst

In any case, there are no vetos on release votes.

> Pedro.
>

Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)


--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir  ha scritto:
...
> >
> > I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
> > what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
> > Category B software in their repositories (feel free
> > to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
> > something we will have to think about.
> >
> 
> It is a service to downstream consumers.  Just as we
> aggregate licenses and notices to make it easier for
> them, we also aggregate the optional category-b code
> tarballs.
>

It is actually a disservice. Some of those tarballs are
obsolete and carry known security risks.
 
> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified
> files available electronically for 12 months.

Thank you for pointing this out.
This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache policies
and a good reason to avoid carrying such code in our
repository.

> 
> So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:
> 

I do see a problem and unless some higher power from
legal@ OKs it, my vote for a release or project
graduation will be -1 (binding), on the basis that
if we do this once we will likely be perpetuating
such practice in all releases.

Pedro.

Re: External libraries



--- Gio 12/1/12, Andre Fischer  ha scritto:
...
> 
> Just to be clear on this.  I do not intend to alter
> the general behavior of how external libraries are
> handled.  I only want to change the directory where
> the already existing modules will be located that
> build the external libraries.
> 

And just to be clear I am OK with your proposal.

There are pending issues that remain unresolved IMHO,
but they are orthogonal to your proposal; sorry that
I brought them here.

Pedro.

Re: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

2012-01-12 Thread drew

On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:31 +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> for the dev builds I plan to provide (asap) I have simply used Drew's 
> proposals, added some of by my own and have built a Mac version.
> 
> I have some minor problems with the OOo-Dev dmg installer background 
> images where I am working on. But ou can get a first impression how 
> would look like under
> 
> Backing window + About box
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/backing_window-about.png
> 
> Intro image
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/intro.png
> 
> MacOS dmg background
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/mac_install_dmg.png
> well the quality of this image is too bad right now and I will try to 
> improve it. But I know Drew will give me support ;-)
> 
Hi Juergen

I really like the MAC image..nice.

Want to add the hc image files also, before I put this to the wiki but
here is what is on my machine right this minute: 

http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/install-images.zip

Changed the text on the Intro screen.
The base logo file is refined IMO, did not included the actual svg file
for that in this zip file, will add it separately to the wiki, directly.

anyway - would welcome feed back on the images as they are.

//drew

Re: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots

2012-01-12 Thread Claudio Filho

Hi Jürgen

2012/1/12 Jürgen Schmidt :
> I am wondering a little bit because I thought the Brazilian community had
> switched to LibreOffice completely.

*Completely* is a lot strong, Jürgen, but in general had a
misalignment about what some of us (and now, talking only in my name)
believed to be a "more free way" and was exactly to other side, with
many strange situations and more yet about the acceptation of some
events, so, a lot of members of TDF simply abandoned that project.

> But I am more than happy that you
> request pt-BR and I will include it. I know what a great job you and others
> have done in Brazil and I would be happy to continue our relations in the
> future.

As i told in other emails, i wait to help as possible.

> But hey we will support all languages where we have localizations for.

I really believe in that! ;-)

> Anybody is invited to help with setting up the pootle framework and working
> on a procedure how we can handle the translations in the future. Here we
> have still some work to do ;-)

Maybe i can help in some thing in this part. I need read more the wiki
and understand better the process.

Claudio

Re: Extensions hosting

I'm attempting to summarise this thread and thus I'm top-posting on
the orginal opening thread.

I will send the below text to the board for consideration. I'll
feedback here after the next board meeting (18th) or sooner if
possible.

Dear Board,

The Apache Open Office project needs to stabilise the hosting of their
extensions.openoffice.org service. The code needs updating and
bandwidth requirements need to be addressed.

Gav, on behalf of the infra team, has offered to move the server to
ASF hardware and stabilise the code. Longer term Gav indicated that
his desire was to turn the service into a meta-data hosting service
whereby extensions could be discovered via extensions.openoffice.,org
but hosted in third party locations.

This plan requires the hosting non-apache software (including closed
source) on ASF hardware. This was approved by the board with
responsibility for resolving the IP issues being delegated to the IPMC
(http://s.apache.org/fO - members only link).

In the meantime Sourceforge have offered to help, initially through an
approach to Rob Weir of the AOO project and then through myself. I
took this proposal (via infra@ who requested the PPMC bring it to the
boards attention) to the AOO dev project for discussion. The thread
can be found at http://s.apache.org/sz6 (public) - the first post in
that thread includes the proposal from Jeff Drobnick (President and
CEO of Geeknet media, it also includes a number of clarifications from
Roberto Gallopini of Geeknet. I've tried to summarise for you here.

After a long discussion the AOO podling has reached a consensus that
the best way forward would be to accept the proposal from Sourceforge
as a short term solution whilst working towards the meta-data site for
the long term. The PPMC feels that moving the service to a non-ASF
host now will minimise disruption for extensions developers and
end-users who are unwilling or unable to conform to ASF policy in the
long term. Similarly the PPMC feels there is a sufficiently large
number of edge cases to make changes in policy more complex than is
necessary since it is the PPMCs desire to provide an "approved" list
of extensions which are expected to conform to existing ASF IP
policies, whilst also enabling third parties to host their own
extensions sites that users can choose to access via a meta-data
service.

We have assurances from SF that they are not interested in locking the
AOO project to their hosted services.  Members of the AOO PPMC will
have shell access to the system and no attempt will be made by SF to
own any of the IP involved.

SF reserve the right to serve advertising on the downloads site (and
possibly on the extensions site, this needs to be clarified).
Downloads would be served from the existing SF mirror network.

It is possible for AOO to point to an intermediate page giving users
the option of visiting other extensions sites if required. That is
extensions.openoffice.org could point to an ASF hosted web page
listing multiple third party sites, one of which would be the SF
hosted service. Consequently, if necessary it is possible for the PPMC
to move hosting to a SF but not to point extensions.openoffice.org
there.

It is hoped that later releases of AOO will include the ability to
search for extensions via a meta-data service managed by the AOO
project. At this point extensions.openoffice.org would return to ASF
hardware. It is expected that the SF hosted extensions repository will
continue to exist and will be one of the first repositories from which
users will be able to download non-ASF extensions.

This proposal raises a few interesting policy questions. Therefore I
would like to ask for guidance on how best to help the AOO project
realise this objective. A few questions that come to mind are:

Will it be necessary to draw up an MoU with SF? If so what are the key
points the board would like to see covered?

Will it be sufficient for the PPMC to work with SF to ensure the
extensions site they provide respects the existing trademark policy?
(bearing in mind that we will eventually be moving
extensions.openoffice.org back to ASF hardware)

Would the board prefer it if extensions.openoffice.org were to
redirection to foo.sourceforge.net? (either automatically or via an
information page) If so would this change the answer to the MoU
question above?

Will this simplify the AOO ability to address IP and fundraising
concerns generated by non-ASF code and donations requests found on
extensions.apache.org?

Does the board have any concerns about advertising appearing on
extensions.openoffice.org? Would this concern be mitigated by refusing
permission to serve advertising from extensions.openoffice.org but
allowing it on the download pages on an sf.net domain?

If the board would like to discuss this at the next board meeting I
will try and be on the call to answer an questions. In the meantime
I'm here on this list.

Ross

On 3 January 2012 15:51, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> As the communit

Re: Real life preview of some of the proposed images

2012-01-12 Thread Kay Schenk

2012/1/12 Jürgen Schmidt 

> Hi,
>
> for the dev builds I plan to provide (asap) I have simply used Drew's
> proposals, added some of by my own and have built a Mac version.
>
> I have some minor problems with the OOo-Dev dmg installer background
> images where I am working on. But ou can get a first impression how would
> look like under
>
> Backing window + About box
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**screenshots/backing_window-**about.png
>
> Intro image
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**screenshots/intro.png
>
> MacOS dmg background
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**screenshots/mac_install_dmg.**png
> well the quality of this image is too bad right now and I will try to
> improve it. But I know Drew will give me support ;-)
>
> Juergen
>

Good going! :)

-- 

MzK

"Follow your bliss."
 -- attributed to Joseph Campbell

Re: developer snapshots builds ready [was: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots}

ok, thanks. While I will install Win xp.

Best regards.
2012/1/12 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 

> Hi,
>
> ok, my installation set seems to be completely broken.
>
> I have running Windows 7 professional, 64bit and the installation works.
> But it seems that on my system it only worked by luck.
>
> Stay tuned for the new installation sets - Thx in advance.
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
> On 12.01.2012 17:31, Facundo Cevey wrote:
>
>> Thansk for your answer, but my sistem is Win7 professional edition.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/12 Oliver-Rainer 
>> Wittmann
>> >
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the try.
>>> I assume that your system is Windows XP. Right?
>>>
>>> The Windows installation set which I have created seems not to be working
>>> on Windows XP - Olaf has the same problem.
>>>
>>> I am currently creating new ones.
>>>
>>> In the meanwhile, I will remove the Windows installation set from
>>> http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
>>> http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the inconvinience.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12.01.2012 17:00, Facundo Cevey wrote:
>>>
>>> When I install OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_es.exe I get the

 following"ERROR: An error occured during registration of extensions!"



 2012/1/11 Oliver-Rainer 
 Wittmannhttp://googlemail.com/>
 >

>
>
  Hi,

>
> until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the
> developer snapshots builds which I have created under
> http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
> <**http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/>
> 
> >
>
>>
>>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
>

>>

Re: developer snapshots builds ready [was: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots}


Hi,

ok, my installation set seems to be completely broken.

I have running Windows 7 professional, 64bit and the installation works. But it 
seems that on my system it only worked by luck.


Stay tuned for the new installation sets - Thx in advance.

Best regards, Oliver.

On 12.01.2012 17:31, Facundo Cevey wrote:

Thansk for your answer, but my sistem is Win7 professional edition.



2012/1/12 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi,

Thanks for the try.
I assume that your system is Windows XP. Right?

The Windows installation set which I have created seems not to be working
on Windows XP - Olaf has the same problem.

I am currently creating new ones.

In the meanwhile, I will remove the Windows installation set from
http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/

Sorry for the inconvinience.

Best regards, Oliver.


On 12.01.2012 17:00, Facundo Cevey wrote:


When I install OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_**install_es.exe I get the
following"ERROR: An error occured during registration of extensions!"



2012/1/11 Oliver-Rainer 
Wittmann




  Hi,


until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the
developer snapshots builds which I have created under
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/>




Best regards, Oliver.

Real life preview of some of the proposed images


Hi,

for the dev builds I plan to provide (asap) I have simply used Drew's 
proposals, added some of by my own and have built a Mac version.


I have some minor problems with the OOo-Dev dmg installer background 
images where I am working on. But ou can get a first impression how 
would look like under


Backing window + About box
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/backing_window-about.png

Intro image
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/intro.png

MacOS dmg background
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/screenshots/mac_install_dmg.png
well the quality of this image is too bad right now and I will try to 
improve it. But I know Drew will give me support ;-)


Juergen

Re: developer snapshots builds ready [was: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots}

Thansk for your answer, but my sistem is Win7 professional edition.



2012/1/12 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the try.
> I assume that your system is Windows XP. Right?
>
> The Windows installation set which I have created seems not to be working
> on Windows XP - Olaf has the same problem.
>
> I am currently creating new ones.
>
> In the meanwhile, I will remove the Windows installation set from
> http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
>
> Sorry for the inconvinience.
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
> On 12.01.2012 17:00, Facundo Cevey wrote:
>
>> When I install OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_**install_es.exe I get the
>> following"ERROR: An error occured during registration of extensions!"
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/11 Oliver-Rainer 
>> Wittmann
>> >
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the
>>> developer snapshots builds which I have created under
>>> http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
>>> http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: WaE: sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx


Hi Pavel,

On 12.01.2012 17:22, Pavel Janík wrote:

Hi,

we have two unused variables in sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx. Remove or 
comment or?

diff -ur sw.orig/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx
--- sw.orig/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx2012-01-12 16:35:11.0 
+0100
+++ sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx 2012-01-12 16:35:50.0 +0100
@@ -1043,9 +1043,10 @@
  aAlignedGrfArea.Left(), aAlignedGrfArea.Top(),
  aAlignedGrfArea.Right(), 
aAlignedGrfArea.Bottom());
  const bool bCropped(aGrfAttr.IsCropped());
+   /*
  const bool bMirrorHor(aGrfAttr.GetMirrorFlags()&  
BMP_MIRROR_HORZ);
  const bool bMirrorVer(aGrfAttr.GetMirrorFlags()&  
BMP_MIRROR_VERT);
-
+   */
  bDone = paintUsingPrimitivesHelper(
  *pOut,
  rSvgDataPtr->getPrimitive2DSequence(),



Thx for the catch.

Just double-checked with Armin - the variables shall be removed.


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots


Hi Claudio,

On 1/12/12 2:45 PM, Claudio Filho wrote:

Hi

2012/1/11 Jürgen Schmidt:

For now i would suggest the folowing languages "en-US de es it fr ja zh-CN"


Juergen, i suggest more one language: pt-BR.

Remember our user numbers? ;-)


I am wondering a little bit because I thought the Brazilian community 
had switched to LibreOffice completely. But I am more than happy that 
you request pt-BR and I will include it. I know what a great job you and 
others have done in Brazil and I would be happy to continue our 
relations in the future.


But hey we will support all languages where we have localizations for. 
Anybody is invited to help with setting up the pootle framework and 
working on a procedure how we can handle the translations in the future. 
Here we have still some work to do ;-)


Juergen

WaE: sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx

2012-01-12 Thread Pavel Janík

Hi,

we have two unused variables in sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx. Remove or 
comment or?

diff -ur sw.orig/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx
--- sw.orig/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx2012-01-12 16:35:11.0 
+0100
+++ sw/source/core/doc/notxtfrm.cxx 2012-01-12 16:35:50.0 +0100
@@ -1043,9 +1043,10 @@
 aAlignedGrfArea.Left(), aAlignedGrfArea.Top(), 
 aAlignedGrfArea.Right(), aAlignedGrfArea.Bottom());
 const bool bCropped(aGrfAttr.IsCropped());
+   /*
 const bool bMirrorHor(aGrfAttr.GetMirrorFlags() & 
BMP_MIRROR_HORZ);
 const bool bMirrorVer(aGrfAttr.GetMirrorFlags() & 
BMP_MIRROR_VERT);
-
+   */
 bDone = paintUsingPrimitivesHelper(
 *pOut,
 rSvgDataPtr->getPrimitive2DSequence(),

-- 
Pavel Janík

Re: developer snapshots builds ready [was: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots}


Hi,

Thanks for the try.
I assume that your system is Windows XP. Right?

The Windows installation set which I have created seems not to be working on 
Windows XP - Olaf has the same problem.


I am currently creating new ones.

In the meanwhile, I will remove the Windows installation set from 
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/


Sorry for the inconvinience.

Best regards, Oliver.

On 12.01.2012 17:00, Facundo Cevey wrote:

When I install OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_es.exe I get the
following"ERROR: An error occured during registration of extensions!"



2012/1/11 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi,

until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the
developer snapshots builds which I have created under
http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: External libraries


On 12.01.2012 16:45, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:


--- Gio 12/1/12, Andre Fischer  ha scritto:
...


What is the difference then between ext_sources and
ext_libraries?
How do you decide which goes where?


ext_sources contains (and will contain) the source code
archives.



I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
Category B software in their repositories (feel free
to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
something we will have to think about.



It is a service to downstream consumers.  Just as we aggregate
licenses and notices to make it easier for them, we also aggregate the
optional category-b code tarballs.

Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified files
available electronically for 12 months.  But we cannot guarantee that
external hosts for the code will be around for 12 months. OpenOffice
has shown itself to be longer-lived and more stable than many of our
dependencies.

So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:

1) Do not include category-b code in our source packages

2) Do segregate the category-b tarballs in a way that makes it clear
they are special and will not accidentally be mixed in with the ALv2
source

3) Do maintain the LICENSE and NOTICE files so they remain accurate



Just to be clear on this.  I do not intend to alter the general behavior 
of how external libraries are handled.  I only want to change the 
directory where the already existing modules will be located that build 
the external libraries.



ext_libraries will contain our makefiles and patches that
unpack the archives from ext_sources, configure, build,
and finally deliver them.


I am OK with this, as long as I can use my prepackaged
version by defining it configure (FWIW, I already
updated the FreeBSD package).

Regards,

Pedro.

Re: developer snapshots builds ready [was: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots}

When I install OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_es.exe I get the
following"ERROR: An error occured during registration of extensions!"



2012/1/11 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 

> Hi,
>
> until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the
> developer snapshots builds which I have created under
> http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>

Re: Images in AOO Blog Posts

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Armin Le Grand  wrote:
>        Hi all,
>
>
> On 12.01.2012 16:34, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Some externally-sourced images do not present properly in all browsers
>> that visit the AOO blog.
>>
>> I notice this especially with IE 9 and IE 8.  The root source is
>> apparently violation of browser privacy rules (even set to medium or low)
>> when accessing the image file attempts to deliver cookies to the client from
>> a domain other than that of the blog site.  (When the image is accessed
>> directly in these browsers, the user is asked whether to download or display
>> it, rather than having it be automatically displayed.)
>>
>> Since it seems inappropriate to request visitors to the blog to lower
>> their browser privacy settings, it would be useful to avoid this problem for
>> casual users and visitors.
>>
>> This happens with the post that Hagar prepared that is now available at<
>>  https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/the_community_forum_new_year>  as of
>> today.  The graphic is at<
>>  http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/download/file.php?id=13066&mode=view>.
>>  The post is not comprehensible without the graphic.
>>
>>
>> This does *not* happen with Armin's beautiful graphic in the post from
>> yesterday:<
>>  https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/features_for_graphicobjects_and_oleobjects>.
>>
>> The difference is that Armin's graphic was uploaded to the blog site.
>>
>> It would be a good thing to find out how that was done and to follow in
>> Armin's footsteps.
>>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>
> That's not really complicated, after login in the 'New entry' View, go to
> 'Media files' in the brown toolbar. Click your way on images and choose 'Add
> media file' from the right control pad. The rest should be self-explaining.
>

OK.  I saved the image from the forums to disk,and then imported into
the Roller media library.  Hopefully it works better with I.E. privacy
settings now.

-Rob

> The reason this is not widely used is that the Apache Roller Weblogger on
> default adds graphics only as thumbnails on which the reader has to click to
> get the original graphic loaded. There seems to be no direct way to change
> that default. I also did not like that and (with Ollis help) we found out
> that in the HTTP source there is a '?t=true' added to one of the links
> representing the graphic. Removing this makes the graphic appear full size;
> we guessed that it's a 'tiny' flag...
>
> HTH!
>
> Sincerely,
>        Armin
> --
> ALG
>

Re: Images in AOO Blog Posts

2012-01-12 Thread Armin Le Grand

Hi all,

On 12.01.2012 16:34, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

Some externally-sourced images do not present properly in all browsers that
visit the AOO blog.

I notice this especially with IE 9 and IE 8. The root source is apparently
violation of browser privacy rules (even set to medium or low) when accessing
the image file attempts to deliver cookies to the client from a domain other
than that of the blog site. (When the image is accessed directly in these
browsers, the user is asked whether to download or display it, rather than
having it be automatically displayed.)

Since it seems inappropriate to request visitors to the blog to lower their
browser privacy settings, it would be useful to avoid this problem for casual
users and visitors.

This happens with the post that Hagar prepared that is now available at<
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/the_community_forum_new_year> as of today. The graphic
is at<
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/download/file.php?id=13066&mode=view>. The
post is not comprehensible without the graphic.

This does *not* happen with Armin's beautiful graphic in the post from yesterday:<
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/features_for_graphicobjects_and_oleobjects>.

The difference is that Armin's graphic was uploaded to the blog site.

It would be a good thing to find out how that was done and to follow in Armin's
footsteps.

- Dennis

That's not really complicated, after login in the 'New entry' View, go
to 'Media files' in the brown toolbar. Click your way on images and
choose 'Add media file' from the right control pad. The rest should be
self-explaining.

The reason this is not widely used is that the Apache Roller Weblogger
on default adds graphics only as thumbnails on which the reader has to
click to get the original graphic loaded. There seems to be no direct
way to change that default. I also did not like that and (with Ollis
help) we found out that in the HTTP source there is a '?t=true' added to
one of the links representing the graphic. Removing this makes the
graphic appear full size; we guessed that it's a 'tiny' flag...

HTH!

Sincerely,
Armin
--
ALG

Re: External libraries

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Andre Fischer  ha scritto:
> ...
>> >
>> > What is the difference then between ext_sources and
>> > ext_libraries?
>> > How do you decide which goes where?
>>
>> ext_sources contains (and will contain) the source code
>> archives.
>>
>
> I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
> what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
> Category B software in their repositories (feel free
> to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
> something we will have to think about.
>

It is a service to downstream consumers.  Just as we aggregate
licenses and notices to make it easier for them, we also aggregate the
optional category-b code tarballs.

Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified files
available electronically for 12 months.  But we cannot guarantee that
external hosts for the code will be around for 12 months. OpenOffice
has shown itself to be longer-lived and more stable than many of our
dependencies.

So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:

1) Do not include category-b code in our source packages

2) Do segregate the category-b tarballs in a way that makes it clear
they are special and will not accidentally be mixed in with the ALv2
source

3) Do maintain the LICENSE and NOTICE files so they remain accurate

>> ext_libraries will contain our makefiles and patches that
>> unpack the archives from ext_sources, configure, build,
>> and finally deliver them.
>
> I am OK with this, as long as I can use my prepackaged
> version by defining it configure (FWIW, I already
> updated the FreeBSD package).
>
> Regards,
>
> Pedro.
>

Re: [BUILD]solaris build failed again.

2012-01-12 Thread L'oiseau de mer

Recently i try to build Dev snapshot version, but meet some problem:
(i exec build --all in the dir smoketestoo_native)

If configure not add --with-system-cppunit, it will build until
smoketestoo_native then appear this error message that findn't
libtest.so, and i have check the dir "ooo/main/test" , it hasn't this
file. (hasn't been builded)
And then check smoketestoo_native/prj/build.lst, "test" is exist. Then
exec command build in the test dir,
it appear this message like "cppunit disabled , nothing to do".

Then i try to test build with --with-system-cppunit, configure can
pass, but in building, it appear these error message:
=
Building module sal
=
...

Entering /UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/sal/cppunittester

Compiling: sal/cppunittester/cppunittester.cxx
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
50: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
50: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
51: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
51: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
52: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
52: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
53: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
53: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
54: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
54: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
55: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
55: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
56: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
56: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
57: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
57: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
58: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
58: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
59: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
59: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
60: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
60: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
61: Error: Badly formed include file name.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
61: Error: There is extra text on this line.
"/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/inc/stl/preextstl.h", line
62: Error: Badly formed include file name.
Compilation aborted, too many Error messages.
dmake:  Error code 2, while making '../unxsoli4.pro/obj/cppunittester.obj'
---* tg_merge.mk *---

1 module(s):
sal
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/sal/cppunittester

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
by running:

build --all:sal

Images in AOO Blog Posts

2012-01-12 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Some externally-sourced images do not present properly in all browsers that 
visit the AOO blog.

I notice this especially with IE 9 and IE 8.  The root source is apparently 
violation of browser privacy rules (even set to medium or low) when accessing 
the image file attempts to deliver cookies to the client from a domain other 
than that of the blog site.  (When the image is accessed directly in these 
browsers, the user is asked whether to download or display it, rather than 
having it be automatically displayed.)  
 
Since it seems inappropriate to request visitors to the blog to lower their 
browser privacy settings, it would be useful to avoid this problem for casual 
users and visitors.

This happens with the post that Hagar prepared that is now available at < 
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/the_community_forum_new_year> as of today.  
The graphic is at < 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/download/file.php?id=13066&mode=view>.
  The post is not comprehensible without the graphic.


This does *not* happen with Armin's beautiful graphic in the post from 
yesterday: < 
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/features_for_graphicobjects_and_oleobjects>.

The difference is that Armin's graphic was uploaded to the blog site.  

It would be a good thing to find out how that was done and to follow in Armin's 
footsteps.
 
 - Dennis

Re: New feature: Drawing thick lines with line caps

2012-01-12 Thread Armin Le Grand


Hi all,

I've now updated the branch 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/linecap to 
trunk and rebuilt, lot of Svg fixes added. I uploaded the fresh build 
(windows version) to http://people.apache.org/~alg/wntmsci12/setup.zip 
if you want to take a look. It supports all exports now, 2D and 3D line 
geometry creation with caps and works well when breaking imported Svg 
with lineCaps definitions.


On 09.01.2012 21:00, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi all,

in ODF (and in SVG) exists the feature, that a thick line can get round
or square line caps at the end of the line. Those caps are added to the
single parts too, if the line is dashed.

I have started to implement that features. Because Armin had re-factored
(some years ago) the internal to use primitives, I could get it work
till you see those line caps on screen. Unfortunately there are still
some parts in Draw which are very old and confusing. Here Armin has
jumped in and added the missing parts.

You can have a look at this upcoming feature in the branch
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/linecap
An intermediate Windows build is available from
http://people.apache.org/~alg/wntmsci12/setup.zip.

Kind regards
Regina


Sincerely,
Armin
--
ALG

Re: External libraries


--- Gio 12/1/12, Andre Fischer  ha scritto:
...
> >
> > What is the difference then between ext_sources and
> > ext_libraries?
> > How do you decide which goes where?
> 
> ext_sources contains (and will contain) the source code
> archives.
> 

I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
Category B software in their repositories (feel free
to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
something we will have to think about.

> ext_libraries will contain our makefiles and patches that
> unpack the archives from ext_sources, configure, build,
> and finally deliver them.

I am OK with this, as long as I can use my prepackaged
version by defining it configure (FWIW, I already
updated the FreeBSD package).

Regards,

Pedro.

Re: developer snapshots builds ready [was: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots}

Hi thanks for the information!

2012/1/11 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 

> Hi,
>
> until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the
> developer snapshots builds which I have created under
> http://people.apache.org/~orw/**DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>

Re: [build

2012-01-12 Thread O.Felka


Am 12.01.2012 14:45, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:


I can not reproduce the failure here on my Windows 7 system.


Yes, on Win7 setup /a works fine.

Groetjes,
Olaf



I executed ../OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe and the
installation works. Afterwards, I executed 'setup.exe /a' which is found
in the installation files folder and this installation also works.
BTW, the installation set do not contain any extensions.

Thus, may be my installation sets are not working under Windows XP.

Does anybody else experience the same issue?

In the meanwhile I will prepare new installation sets.


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [build

Hi,

On 12.01.2012 13:53, O.Felka wrote:

Am 12.01.2012 13:46, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

Hi,

On 12.01.2012 12:06, O.Felka wrote:

Am 12.01.2012 09:12, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

On 11.01.2012 17:43, O.Felka wrote:

Hi Oliver,

I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe

I got the error "An error occured during registration of
extensions!". The installation ends up in a rollback with epty
folders.

The same installation is ok with
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe

Do you had OOo 3.4 Beta installed on your system? May be with
user-installed extensions. I had it on my machine and the installation
of the AOO developer snapshot work without any problem, but it updated
my installed OOo 3.4 Beta. As I had no user-installed extension in my
OOo 3.4 Beta I got no error regarding the registration of extensions
during the installation. But, I first I did not run 'setup.exe -a' - I
just installed it by executing the installation set executable. When I
recognized that it trashed my OOo 3.4 Beta, I uninstall that mixed
version from my system and installed the developer snapshot again. This
works. After the installation I had the folder with the installation
files on my disk. Here, I executed 'setup.exe -a' and successfully
installed and run it.

Can you give it another try?

Best regards, Oliver.

I've done the installation on a virgin XP image. No Office has been
installed before. 'setup /a' (administrative installation) just extracts
the Office files. No update for an existing Office will be done.

Thus, did I get it right that you have given it another try and that it
works?

Best regards, Oliver.

Yes and no:

Yes: I give it another try. No: It still doesn't work.

I can not reproduce the failure here on my Windows 7 system.

I executed ../OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe and the installation
works. Afterwards, I executed 'setup.exe /a' which is found in the installation
files folder and this installation also works.

BTW, the installation set do not contain any extensions.

Thus, may be my installation sets are not working under Windows XP.

Does anybody else experience the same issue?

In the meanwhile I will prepare new installation sets.

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots

2012-01-12 Thread Claudio Filho

Hi

2012/1/11 Jürgen Schmidt :
> For now i would suggest the folowing languages "en-US de es it fr ja zh-CN"

Juergen, i suggest more one language: pt-BR.

Remember our user numbers? ;-)

Claudio

Re: External libraries




On 12.01.2012 14:19, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Andre Fischer  wrote:

Hi all,

During the work on replacing lp_solve with CoinMP (almost done) I stumbled
upon the question of where to build the CoinMP libraries.

Following the current pattern I would add a coinmp directory into main/
The downside of this is that the main/ directory becomes cluttered with
modules that basically consist only of a single makefile and maybe some
patch files.

I would like to propose a different solution: add a new ext_libraries/
directory at the same level of main/ and ext_sources/.  By reusing some of
the old source_config functionality (in the form of the SourceConfig.pm in
solver/bin/modules) the new modules in ext_libraries/ (coinmp in my example)
can be transparently integrated into the build process.

My plan is to add the ext_sources/ directory and integrate it into our build
system and then to add modules for coinmp and, when the need arises, for
other new external libraries.  Existing modules in main/, like moz or cairo,
can be moved later.

Any comments, objections, questions for more information?



What is the difference then between ext_sources and ext_libraries?
How do you decide which goes where?


ext_sources contains (and will contain) the source code archives.

ext_libraries will contain our makefiles and patches that unpack the 
archives from ext_sources, configure, build, and finally deliver them. 
Basically out wrapper and glue code that turns external source code into 
external libraries.






Regards,
Andre

Re: External libraries

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Andre Fischer  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> During the work on replacing lp_solve with CoinMP (almost done) I stumbled
> upon the question of where to build the CoinMP libraries.
>
> Following the current pattern I would add a coinmp directory into main/
> The downside of this is that the main/ directory becomes cluttered with
> modules that basically consist only of a single makefile and maybe some
> patch files.
>
> I would like to propose a different solution: add a new ext_libraries/
> directory at the same level of main/ and ext_sources/.  By reusing some of
> the old source_config functionality (in the form of the SourceConfig.pm in
> solver/bin/modules) the new modules in ext_libraries/ (coinmp in my example)
> can be transparently integrated into the build process.
>
> My plan is to add the ext_sources/ directory and integrate it into our build
> system and then to add modules for coinmp and, when the need arises, for
> other new external libraries.  Existing modules in main/, like moz or cairo,
> can be moved later.
>
> Any comments, objections, questions for more information?
>

What is the difference then between ext_sources and ext_libraries?
How do you decide which goes where?

> Regards,
> Andre

Re: Copyright statements and some other stuff


On 1/12/12 12:54 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

2012/1/12 Jürgen Schmidt:

Hi,

I have some stuff that I would like to discuss before we release a 3.4 and
to move forward with related changes

1. Copyright statements
We have several places where we define variables containing copyright
statements. Most often they are set to

copyright = "1999-2010 by Oracle" or similar or
copyright = "1999-2009 by OpenOffice.org"

Do we want or have to change this to something like "2011 Apache Software
Foundation"?

2. Vendor
We have also several places where we define the vendor to "Oracle" or
"OpenOffice.org"

I would change this to "Apache Software Foundation"

The vendor can be changed also by the configure swtich --with-vendor



For the above two, I think it depends on how the user sees these
values displayed in the product.  What is the context?


yes, I agree, a prominent place is for example the About dialog



I think we can change the "vendor" value to ASF freely.  For the
copyright, we need more care.  Oracle still owns the copyright.  We
have a license granted from them (ALv2), but they still own the
copyright on their original work.   The normal practice would be to
relocate the copyright notice, with theoir permission, to the NOTICE
file and then put ASF copyright for the aggregate product.  But we
should work that through with Andrew Rist.


agree



A claim of a copyright by OpenOffice.org is puzzling, since there is
no legal entity called "OpenOffice.org".  It would be good to know the
context in which this is shown to the user.

I assume it is used the packages on Linunx/Solaris. We still have the 3 
layer office (which we should drop later) where we have the ure, base 
and brand layer.


Package files related the ure and the base layer would have 
OpenOffice.org copyright and files for the brand layer "Oracle".


Juergen


3. Values in minor.mk
The main/solenv/inc/minor.mk contains several values that have influence on
several places.

For example the name of the download files, the content of the About dialog,
etc.

The value are current:
RSCVERSION=340
RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584)
BUILD=9584
LAST_MINOR=m1
SOURCEVERSION=OOO340

I think we should define new values and the question is how we want to use
this values.

I would propose the following for the short term:

RSCVERSION=340 ->  we keep this for now because are working on an AOO 3.4 and
we will change it when we work on 4.0 or 3.4.1 accordingly

RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584) ->  here i am not sure how we should handle
this. We have currently no similar build process that we had in the past. I
would propose a value like "340 (Rev.: r1230461)" where we change the
revision number dynamically.

BUILD ->  don't have a good idea yet
LAST_MINOR ->  the same, I haven't a good idea yet.

More analysis is necessary to understand where this is used and if we still
need it.

SOURCEVERSION=AOO340 ->  here I would simply change the first "O" to "A" to
make clear that we work on the AOO sources

Any comments or ideas?

Juergen

Re: [build

2012-01-12 Thread O.Felka

Am 12.01.2012 13:46, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

Hi,

On 12.01.2012 12:06, O.Felka wrote:

Am 12.01.2012 09:12, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

On 11.01.2012 17:43, O.Felka wrote:

Hi Oliver,

I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe

I got the error "An error occured during registration of extensions!".
The
installation ends up in a rollback with epty folders.

The same installation is ok with
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe

Do you had OOo 3.4 Beta installed on your system? May be with
user-installed extensions.
I had it on my machine and the installation of the AOO developer
snapshot work without any problem, but it updated my installed OOo 3.4
Beta.
As I had no user-installed extension in my OOo 3.4 Beta I got no error
regarding the registration of extensions during the installation.
But, I first I did not run 'setup.exe -a' - I just installed it by
executing the installation set executable.
When I recognized that it trashed my OOo 3.4 Beta, I uninstall that
mixed version from my system and installed the developer snapshot again.
This works.
After the installation I had the folder with the installation files on
my disk. Here, I executed 'setup.exe -a' and successfully installed and
run it.

Can you give it another try?

Best regards, Oliver.

I've done the installation on a virgin XP image. No Office has been
installed
before. 'setup /a' (administrative installation) just extracts the
Office files.
No update for an existing Office will be done.

Thus, did I get it right that you have given it another try and that it
works?

Best regards, Oliver.

Yes and no:

Yes: I give it another try.
No: It still doesn't work.

Groetjes,
Olaf

Re: [build

Hi,

On 12.01.2012 12:06, O.Felka wrote:

Am 12.01.2012 09:12, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

On 11.01.2012 17:43, O.Felka wrote:

Hi Oliver,

I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe

I got the error "An error occured during registration of extensions!".
The
installation ends up in a rollback with epty folders.

The same installation is ok with
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe

Do you had OOo 3.4 Beta installed on your system? May be with
user-installed extensions.
I had it on my machine and the installation of the AOO developer
snapshot work without any problem, but it updated my installed OOo 3.4
Beta.
As I had no user-installed extension in my OOo 3.4 Beta I got no error
regarding the registration of extensions during the installation.
But, I first I did not run 'setup.exe -a' - I just installed it by
executing the installation set executable.
When I recognized that it trashed my OOo 3.4 Beta, I uninstall that
mixed version from my system and installed the developer snapshot again.
This works.
After the installation I had the folder with the installation files on
my disk. Here, I executed 'setup.exe -a' and successfully installed and
run it.

Can you give it another try?

Best regards, Oliver.

I've done the installation on a virgin XP image. No Office has been installed
before. 'setup /a' (administrative installation) just extracts the Office files.
No update for an existing Office will be done.

Thus, did I get it right that you have given it another try and that it works?

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Copyright statements and some other stuff

2012/1/12 Jürgen Schmidt :
> Hi,
>
> I have some stuff that I would like to discuss before we release a 3.4 and
> to move forward with related changes
>
> 1. Copyright statements
> We have several places where we define variables containing copyright
> statements. Most often they are set to
>
> copyright = "1999-2010 by Oracle" or similar or
> copyright = "1999-2009 by OpenOffice.org"
>
> Do we want or have to change this to something like "2011 Apache Software
> Foundation"?
>
> 2. Vendor
> We have also several places where we define the vendor to "Oracle" or
> "OpenOffice.org"
>
> I would change this to "Apache Software Foundation"
>
> The vendor can be changed also by the configure swtich --with-vendor
>

For the above two, I think it depends on how the user sees these
values displayed in the product.  What is the context?

I think we can change the "vendor" value to ASF freely.  For the
copyright, we need more care.  Oracle still owns the copyright.  We
have a license granted from them (ALv2), but they still own the
copyright on their original work.   The normal practice would be to
relocate the copyright notice, with theoir permission, to the NOTICE
file and then put ASF copyright for the aggregate product.  But we
should work that through with Andrew Rist.

A claim of a copyright by OpenOffice.org is puzzling, since there is
no legal entity called "OpenOffice.org".  It would be good to know the
context in which this is shown to the user.

> 3. Values in minor.mk
> The main/solenv/inc/minor.mk contains several values that have influence on
> several places.
>
> For example the name of the download files, the content of the About dialog,
> etc.
>
> The value are current:
> RSCVERSION=340
> RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584)
> BUILD=9584
> LAST_MINOR=m1
> SOURCEVERSION=OOO340
>
> I think we should define new values and the question is how we want to use
> this values.
>
> I would propose the following for the short term:
>
> RSCVERSION=340 -> we keep this for now because are working on an AOO 3.4 and
> we will change it when we work on 4.0 or 3.4.1 accordingly
>
> RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584) -> here i am not sure how we should handle
> this. We have currently no similar build process that we had in the past. I
> would propose a value like "340 (Rev.: r1230461)" where we change the
> revision number dynamically.
>
> BUILD -> don't have a good idea yet
> LAST_MINOR -> the same, I haven't a good idea yet.
>
> More analysis is necessary to understand where this is used and if we still
> need it.
>
> SOURCEVERSION=AOO340 -> here I would simply change the first "O" to "A" to
> make clear that we work on the AOO sources
>
> Any comments or ideas?
>
> Juergen
>
>

Re: May I use "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache Incubator" logos on OpenOffice.org CD

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Jan 2012 12:26:59 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
> wrote:
>> > Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>> >>> May I use "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache Incubator" logos on
>> >>> OpenOffice.org CD?...
>> >>
>> >> As we've done in the past, we seek lazy consensus from the PPMC on
>> >> these requests and then send our recommendation to the Branding VP
>> >> (Shane) for the final decision. So let's wait 72-hours and see if
>> >> there are any concerns.
>> >
>> > No objections at all, but I would generalize the question and turn it
>> > into a FAQ: surely we can't expect to have to approve logo requests for
>> > every CD distribution initiative, so we should probably reach the
>> > consensus (and consult Shane) on generically allowing the OpenOffice.org
>> > logo, and the logo that will eventually replace it, on CDs containing
>> > the unmodified software as released by Apache (a more proper wording can
>> > probably be found, but you get the concept).
>>
>> So, hypothetically, if someone wanted to produce CD's that contained
>> literal copies of AOO and put the logo on them, would they then be
>> allowed to sell them on eBay, and to show a photograph of the CD with
>> the logo?  That would be allowed if we gave blanket permission.
>>
>> Also, would someone be allowed to use the logo for CD's that they sell
>> from a website where they claim that OpenOffice is in danger and that
>> they are collecting donations in order to rescue OpenOffice?
>>
>> It might make sense to handle these requests case-by-case for now,
>> until we have a better sense of what kinds of problems we will
>> encounter.
>
> Lets stick with CTR, one thing that history has shown us is that there are a
> lot of eyes out there, if someone is misusing the brand, it gets back to us
> pretty fast.  Far too much time is being spent on this sort of nonproductive
> effort where we could simply be using the eyes of the wider community to keep
> us in touch.
>

That is not current ASF policy.  We currently require explicit
permission to use the loog. If you want to change policy, I'd
recommend starting a new thread on that, so your thoughts are not
buried in this one.

As for "far too much time is being spent", I'd draw your attention to
the fact that this is the first logo request we've received for a CD
in 6 months, and perhaps only the 4th logo request we've received at
all.  All our current process requires is lazy consensus, e.g., a 72
hour opportunity for PPMC members to object.  And then VP, Branding
permission based on our recommendation.  So this is neither difficult
nor time consuming.  And if anyone thinks it is, I'm happy to remove
that objection by volunteering to manage the workflow for this myself
for this project, something I'm essentially already doing.

> Hands-off worked in the past, sure there were breaches, but in terms of the
> greater picture the numbers were very small.  The easier we can make it for
> the brand to be out in the wild the better, if only from a brand recognition
> point of view.  If we want to have absolute control over how and where the
> brand is used then it will not get the spread it needs without the expense of
> paid advertising.
>
> Not much point in having a a brand if we are the only ones looking at it or
> recognising it.
>

That is an argument for giving permission broadly.  It is not an
argument for giving permission without review.  Think of this as an
opportunity for engagement with the person or group wanting to use the
logo.  By asking our permission we're introduced.  We have the
opportunity to explain our preferred ways to use our branding.  We can
answer their questions.  We can perhaps point them to other forms of
the logo,. Maybe we identify ways of cross promoting their activity.
It opens up a two-way conversation.  It is not a bad thing.

>
>>
>> > The old policy, if I recall correctly, was to allow this kind of usage
>> > and a generic usage for "community activities".
>
> indeed
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >  Andrea.

Copyright statements and some other stuff


Hi,

I have some stuff that I would like to discuss before we release a 3.4 
and to move forward with related changes


1. Copyright statements
We have several places where we define variables containing copyright 
statements. Most often they are set to


copyright = "1999-2010 by Oracle" or similar or
copyright = "1999-2009 by OpenOffice.org"

Do we want or have to change this to something like "2011 Apache 
Software Foundation"?


2. Vendor
We have also several places where we define the vendor to "Oracle" or 
"OpenOffice.org"


I would change this to "Apache Software Foundation"

The vendor can be changed also by the configure swtich --with-vendor

3. Values in minor.mk
The main/solenv/inc/minor.mk contains several values that have influence 
on several places.


For example the name of the download files, the content of the About 
dialog, etc.


The value are current:
RSCVERSION=340
RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584)
BUILD=9584
LAST_MINOR=m1
SOURCEVERSION=OOO340

I think we should define new values and the question is how we want to 
use this values.


I would propose the following for the short term:

RSCVERSION=340 -> we keep this for now because are working on an AOO 3.4 
and we will change it when we work on 4.0 or 3.4.1 accordingly


RSCREVISION=340m1(Build:9584) -> here i am not sure how we should handle 
this. We have currently no similar build process that we had in the 
past. I would propose a value like "340 (Rev.: r1230461)" where we 
change the revision number dynamically.


BUILD -> don't have a good idea yet
LAST_MINOR -> the same, I haven't a good idea yet.

More analysis is necessary to understand where this is used and if we 
still need it.


SOURCEVERSION=AOO340 -> here I would simply change the first "O" to "A" 
to make clear that we work on the AOO sources


Any comments or ideas?

Juergen

Re: [build

2012-01-12 Thread O.Felka

Am 12.01.2012 09:12, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

On 11.01.2012 17:43, O.Felka wrote:

Hi Oliver,

I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe

I got the error "An error occured during registration of extensions!".
The
installation ends up in a rollback with epty folders.

The same installation is ok with
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe

Do you had OOo 3.4 Beta installed on your system? May be with
user-installed extensions.
I had it on my machine and the installation of the AOO developer
snapshot work without any problem, but it updated my installed OOo 3.4
Beta.
As I had no user-installed extension in my OOo 3.4 Beta I got no error
regarding the registration of extensions during the installation.
But, I first I did not run 'setup.exe -a' - I just installed it by
executing the installation set executable.
When I recognized that it trashed my OOo 3.4 Beta, I uninstall that
mixed version from my system and installed the developer snapshot again.
This works.
After the installation I had the folder with the installation files on
my disk. Here, I executed 'setup.exe -a' and successfully installed and
run it.

Can you give it another try?

Best regards, Oliver.

Regards,
Olaf

Re: External libraries


On 1/12/12 11:40 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:

Hi all,

During the work on replacing lp_solve with CoinMP (almost done) I
stumbled upon the question of where to build the CoinMP libraries.

Following the current pattern I would add a coinmp directory into main/
The downside of this is that the main/ directory becomes cluttered with
modules that basically consist only of a single makefile and maybe some
patch files.

I would like to propose a different solution: add a new ext_libraries/
directory at the same level of main/ and ext_sources/. By reusing some
of the old source_config functionality (in the form of the
SourceConfig.pm in solver/bin/modules) the new modules in ext_libraries/
(coinmp in my example) can be transparently integrated into the build
process.

My plan is to add the ext_sources/ directory and integrate it into our
build system and then to add modules for coinmp and, when the need
arises, for other new external libraries. Existing modules in main/,
like moz or cairo, can be moved later.

Any comments, objections, questions for more information?


+1 sounds like a very good idea to cleanup the source tree further and 
make the strucutre more intuitive (at least for me)


Juergen

Re: Error 126


On 12.01.2012 10:35, Tor Lillqvist wrote:

It certainly has nothing to do with missing DLLs. It's most likely
some Cygwin bug that happens randomly (due to race conditions or
whatever). I think it happens only (?) on 64-bit systems, but I am not
sure. We haven't really found any good solution in LibreOffice either,
except to semi-automatically retry commands if they seem to fail with
this bogus error.


Thanks for the information, although I would have hoped for better news. 
 I have been myself working on a wrapper for the build command that 
automatically restarts a build when it breaks with this error.

Doing this inside the build system is an interesting idea.



--tml

External libraries


Hi all,

During the work on replacing lp_solve with CoinMP (almost done) I 
stumbled upon the question of where to build the CoinMP libraries.


Following the current pattern I would add a coinmp directory into main/
The downside of this is that the main/ directory becomes cluttered with 
modules that basically consist only of a single makefile and maybe some 
patch files.


I would like to propose a different solution: add a new ext_libraries/ 
directory at the same level of main/ and ext_sources/.  By reusing some 
of the old source_config functionality (in the form of the 
SourceConfig.pm in solver/bin/modules) the new modules in ext_libraries/ 
(coinmp in my example) can be transparently integrated into the build 
process.


My plan is to add the ext_sources/ directory and integrate it into our 
build system and then to add modules for coinmp and, when the need 
arises, for other new external libraries.  Existing modules in main/, 
like moz or cairo, can be moved later.


Any comments, objections, questions for more information?

Regards,
Andre

Re: May I use "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache Incubator" logos on OpenOffice.org CD

2012-01-12 Thread Graham Lauder

On Thursday 12 Jan 2012 12:26:59 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti  
wrote:
> > Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
> >>> May I use "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache Incubator" logos on
> >>> OpenOffice.org CD?...
> >> 
> >> As we've done in the past, we seek lazy consensus from the PPMC on
> >> these requests and then send our recommendation to the Branding VP
> >> (Shane) for the final decision. So let's wait 72-hours and see if
> >> there are any concerns.
> > 
> > No objections at all, but I would generalize the question and turn it
> > into a FAQ: surely we can't expect to have to approve logo requests for
> > every CD distribution initiative, so we should probably reach the
> > consensus (and consult Shane) on generically allowing the OpenOffice.org
> > logo, and the logo that will eventually replace it, on CDs containing
> > the unmodified software as released by Apache (a more proper wording can
> > probably be found, but you get the concept).
> 
> So, hypothetically, if someone wanted to produce CD's that contained
> literal copies of AOO and put the logo on them, would they then be
> allowed to sell them on eBay, and to show a photograph of the CD with
> the logo?  That would be allowed if we gave blanket permission.
> 
> Also, would someone be allowed to use the logo for CD's that they sell
> from a website where they claim that OpenOffice is in danger and that
> they are collecting donations in order to rescue OpenOffice?
> 
> It might make sense to handle these requests case-by-case for now,
> until we have a better sense of what kinds of problems we will
> encounter.

Lets stick with CTR, one thing that history has shown us is that there are a 
lot of eyes out there, if someone is misusing the brand, it gets back to us 
pretty fast.  Far too much time is being spent on this sort of nonproductive 
effort where we could simply be using the eyes of the wider community to keep 
us in touch.

Hands-off worked in the past, sure there were breaches, but in terms of the 
greater picture the numbers were very small.  The easier we can make it for 
the brand to be out in the wild the better, if only from a brand recognition 
point of view.  If we want to have absolute control over how and where the 
brand is used then it will not get the spread it needs without the expense of 
paid advertising.  

Not much point in having a a brand if we are the only ones looking at it or 
recognising it.

> 
> > The old policy, if I recall correctly, was to allow this kind of usage
> > and a generic usage for "community activities".

indeed

Cheers
GL

> > 
> > Regards,
> >  Andrea.

Re: Error 126

2012-01-12 Thread Tor Lillqvist

It certainly has nothing to do with missing DLLs. It's most likely
some Cygwin bug that happens randomly (due to race conditions or
whatever). I think it happens only (?) on 64-bit systems, but I am not
sure. We haven't really found any good solution in LibreOffice either,
except to semi-automatically retry commands if they seem to fail with
this bogus error.

--tml

Re: Error 126


Hi,

On 11.01.2012 22:19, Facundo Cevey wrote:

HI!
Error 126 is usually displayed at run time when some of the DLLs on your
system are missing. The message with the error code 126 may also be
displayed when an application is trying to connect to a database and a
required DLL is not specified in your machine’s PATH.
many databases require that you install and configure a client side library
to enable any client to connect. Some of the databases that require a
client side library are WinSQL Oracle Driver, Oracle ODBC Driver, and
Microsoft Oracle Driver.

*reinstall the application or update it.*


My build breaks happen randomly but mostly the compilation of a file is 
involved.


As I understand it, error 126 describes some form of access problem. 
That lead me to suspecting the virus scanner.  Possible scenario:


1. Compiler starts to compile a file and tries to open it.
2. Virus scanner cuts in and scans the file.
3. Compiler has to wait too long, gets bored and signals error.

The problem is, the last line does not sound very convincing to me.



2012/1/11 Andre Fischer


Hi all,

On Windows7 my build breaks frequently with an error 126.  This happens
apparently randomly, not tied to a specific module or file.  Restarting the
build in the module where it broke works fine.

At the moment I suspect the virus scanner (different ones on different
computers) to cause this.

Does anybody *know* the reason for the build breaks?

Regards,
Andre

Re: Error 126


Hi,

On 11.01.2012 22:52, TJ Frazier wrote:

Hi, Andre,

On 1/11/2012 16:19, Facundo Cevey wrote:

HI!
Error 126 is usually displayed at run time when some of the DLLs on your
system are missing. The message with the error code 126 may also be
displayed when an application is trying to connect to a database and a
required DLL is not specified in your machine’s PATH.
many databases require that you install and configure a client side
library
to enable any client to connect. Some of the databases that require a
client side library are WinSQL Oracle Driver, Oracle ODBC Driver, and
Microsoft Oracle Driver.

*reinstall the application or update it.*


A simple case of this kind of 126 error would be permanent, but this one
is transient. However . . . are you running parallel builds (-Pn or
whatever)? Maybe some library isn't built / moved / installed yet, when
another fork needs it. --/tj/


No, it happens regardless of the number of build processes.



2012/1/11 Andre Fischer


Hi all,

On Windows7 my build breaks frequently with an error 126. This happens
apparently randomly, not tied to a specific module or file.
Restarting the
build in the module where it broke works fine.

At the moment I suspect the virus scanner (different ones on different
computers) to cause this.

Does anybody *know* the reason for the build breaks?

Regards,
Andre

Re: [build