Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
Jeez Rob, I'm tired of this. I am trying to put a full stop at the end of this. I say again. What I, and I guess many other ASF Members, will want to avoid is to make it easier to modify code and archive it here as a fork than it is to work at getting the patches committed upstream. Where the AOO project feels this approach is unworkable I believe that a case for hosting source tarballs should be made to the legal team as I have tried to communicate earlier in this thread. My mail acknowledged that I understand people here feel that a case can be made. I am not arguing fire our against the case. I am communicating *again* that this is an edge case with respect to existing ASF policy and I am not the person to make a final decision on this. Why you are still trying to argue with me? Either make the case our get on with an interim solution. There is nothing more that can be productively discussed about policy here. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 15, 2012 3:20 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On 13 January 2012 18:36, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On 13 January 2012 17:38, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: You are trying to argue the necessity point. I'm not arguing any point. I'm asking questions so that I might understand what the sticking point is. OK. You'll understand this better if you think of it as a configuration management question rather than a question of necessity. Thank you Rob. Of course this is well understood in a general context. However, earlier in this thread I was informed that we were not talking about situations where the code had been modified. I'm not clear whether we are talking about hypothetical or real situations here. There seems to be many contradictions in this thread. The point Pedro brought up, and the point you are trying to argue against, is storage of MPL modules in SVN. That is what I am arguing for. To be absolutely clear about my own position in the general context: If the third party code is available elsewhere then there is no need to hold it here in AOO (if there is reason to believe the third party host is at risk that is an edge case). You say, no need. I say engineering prudence. This is not a policy question. If third party code needs modification and those modifications have been contributed to the upstream project but not yet included there then those patches need to be stored here. So you are arguing that there may be reasons for storing MPL code in SVN? I realise that some want to store the full code here, I don't see the need myself. In the past I've always maintained change sets and checked out source and applied patches in the build scripts. I've found that this encourages people to work upstream to get the patches included. There is some short term pain for this, but in my experience it is for long term gain. However, I do accept that this doesn't always work out. You say, no need. I say engineering prudence. This is not a policy question. Where the AOO project feels this approach is unworkable I believe that a case for hosting source tarballs should be made to the legal team as I have tried to communicate earlier in this thread. You say, unworkable. I say engineering prudence. This is not a policy question. What I, and I guess many other ASF Members, will want to avoid is to make it easier to modify code and archive it here as a fork than it is to work at getting the patches committed upstream. We avoid changing this code in other ways. Maybe this was not clear,or you did not read what was said previously. We do not store individual source files in SVN, as we would the core AOO code. We store tarballs, i.e., archived bundles of the complete module, with a name that includes an MD5 hash of the source code. This prevents anyone on this project from changing that modules without breaking the hash. We're doing only as little as is necessary to ensure the the 3rd party module is properly archived, as a service to the continuity of this project and to downstream consumers. Perhaps you underestimate the importance of this? This might be from lack of experience with software products of comparable size and complexity. AOO is unlike anything else you have at Apache, in terms of size and number of modules we integrate with. This is because unlike almost every other project, we are an end-user GUI application and need to integrate broadly with the platform at many levels, from install/uninstall, to address books, to crypto, to clipboard, to platform specific UI libraries, etc. The typical Apache product does only a small percentage of this. In the meantime Pedro has made a suggestion that
Re: Seeking Bugzilla Admin Volunteers
Rob Weir wrote: Did you read anyone say that current privileges are going to be dropped? I certainly did not say that. No, but that was a doubt I had: in the process of granting new privileges, it might be that someone notices that a lot of people already have high privileges, and that this group includes people currently unaffiliated with the project. I was just making sure that current privileges are not dropped now: this will still be an issue, but it can be dealt with separately. Regards, Andrea.
Re: May I use OpenOffice.org and Apache Incubator logos on OpenOffice.org CD
Thank you, Rob, for forwarding my request to tradema...@apache.org. I would like to use Apache Incubator logo with OpenOffice.org logo on the OpenOffice.org 3.0.0 CD Japanese because I think I can emphasize that OpenOffice.org the code, the product and the community are now hosted by Apache. Thanks, khirano On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Hi Shane. This request to use the OpenOffice.org logo came to the ooo-dev list. We reviewed and there were no objections after 72-hours to forwarding this request on to you with our positive recommendation. Note: the request was also for use of the Apache Incubator logo. We gave no opinion on that. Regards, -Rob -- Forwarded message -- From: Kazunari Hirano khir...@gmail.com Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM Subject: May I use OpenOffice.org and Apache Incubator logos on OpenOffice.org CD To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Happy New Year! Please take a look at the following page. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/JA/Marketing/OpenOffice.org_CD/ May I use OpenOffice.org and Apache Incubator logos on OpenOffice.org CD? Thanks, khirano -- khir...@apache.org Apache OpenOffice (incubating) http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 15.01.2012 01:46, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi there, On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:36:34AM +0100, O.Felka wrote: I'm using this Office http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe on WinXP - SP3. Regards,Ok, without an official AOO build QA work is nonsense. It makes no sense to jumpp from developer playground A to developer build b to c to see if something is fixed. Olaf I'm using http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe Regards, Zoltan Ok, I see. Without an official AOO build QA work is nonsense. I tend to disagree here. It seems you're not subscribed to the issues mailing list (ooo-issues-subscr...@incubator.apache.org). Many issues have been discovered (and even solved) since we started providing builds for testing purposes. I'm writing about AOO and Java 7 (see subject). Calling this a nonsense is underestimating the efforts of people doing the build, people doing the QA (Regina, Reizinger, Oliver, et. al.), and people solving the issues. Just to quote an example, Regina's work testing the new SVG implementation is remarkable, and I'm sure Armin appreciates it. This example doesn't fit. I've you've watched the issue (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352) and this thread you'll see that I've been told to try - http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/ - http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe - http://people.apache.org/~orw/ That's not the same as the work of Regina and Armin. Facts have shown that builds are useful, we have volunteers willing to help QAing, so we should keep providing them until we have official weekly Developer Snapshots. That said, I agree that the situation is suboptimal, but we do not have buildboots for all platforms yet. It makes no sense to jump from developer playground A to developer build b to c to see if something is fixed or not. Back to the present issue, as I wrote in the bug, we have to split: a) this issue, detect JRE 7.0 version b) issues with things that don't work with JRE 7 For (b), please open new bug reports of the kind [java 7] XXX does not work or the like. And set them as blockers for i118352 when/if they are confirmed. And I wrote that this are two sides of one medal. Fixing a) without b) is senseless. So it has to be fixed in one go. Regards Olaf Regards
Re: [BUG]AOO in Asia Language word's counts calculate is wrong
On 01/01/2012 L'oiseau de mer wrote: I test the lastest version AOO, and noticed the problem. This a old problem since past openoffice.org. I hope this problem can be solved in new AOO. Because this different mathod calculated between Asia Language word's counts and Europe or Western. For the record, this seems to be https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=17964 It is said to be solved in Lotus Symphony and it is marked as a Release Blocker for OpenOffice.org 3.4 (yes, for OpenOffice.org 3.4, not for Apache OpenOffice 3.4; I'm not sure whether Release Blockers for OpenOffice.org 3.4 apply to Apache OpenOffice 3.4 too). Notice that I have to trust comments in the issue: I have no specific knowledge regarding support for Asian languages, and thus I cannot be 100% sure that this is the same problem you describe. Scroll down the comments since the issue initially had a different focus. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Seeking Bugzilla Admin Volunteers
On Jan 15, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Rob Weir wrote: Did you read anyone say that current privileges are going to be dropped? I certainly did not say that. No, but that was a doubt I had: in the process of granting new privileges, it might be that someone notices that a lot of people already have high privileges, and that this group includes people currently unaffiliated with the project. I was just making sure that current privileges are not dropped now: this will still be an issue, but it can be dealt with separately. We need to have a common set of privileges for ALL committers. We should not have to request it, it should be done. The PPMC should decide what the normal set of privileges should be for the general community as well. Maybe as another thread this will noticed. I am really glad I rejected using BZ to discuss the website a few months ago since no privileges with the AOO BZ have been assigned to anyone who wasn't with the former project yet former members who have not continued with this project still have privileges. This is a huge issue and ought to be addressed this week. Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea.
Broken authentication in the current Extensions website
The authentication in the current Extensions website is broken, possibly due to DNS migration (but possibly not!). I reported it in http://s.apache.org/iTr but it probably got buried in that thread. If you open http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/user (reload until it shows) you will get The login is currently not possible: http://eis.services.openoffice.org/ - HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found Does this have anything to do with the DNS migration? I noticed it the day after the DNS migration, but a quick investigation shows that eis.services.openoffice.org is an alias for tools.services.openoffice.org and that its IP address is 192.18.197.110 which is in the Oracle network, so I'm not sure it is related to migration. Fact is: login at http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/user is broken, while login (with the same single-sign-on backend) at https://openoffice.org/people/login works normally. This means that extensions authors haven't been able to update their extensions for at least a couple of weeks. Regards, Andrea.
Missing Library libqstart_gtk.so
I went and tried compiling again the latest build for Solaris 11, this time with just configure and nothing turned off, including cups and gtk. Previously I was able to fully compile with just gtk turned off. Now I'm hitting a stumbling block, libqstart_gtk.so. Where does this library originate? Thanks for any help. ... checking required files ... .. searching zip ... Found: /usr/bin/zip ... analyzing ../util/openoffice.lst ... ... reading include pathes ... ... analyzing script: /Download_Files/OpenOffice_3.X/Source/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/bin/setup_osl.ins ... ... analyzing directories ... ... analyzing files ... ... analyzing scpactions ... ... analyzing shortcuts ... ... analyzing unix links ... ... analyzing profile ... ... analyzing profileitems ... ... analyzing modules ... ... languages en-US ... ... analyzing files ... ERROR: The following files could not be found: ERROR: File not found: libqstart_gtk.so ... cleaning the output tree ... ... removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_13326428219 ... ** ERROR: ERROR: Missing files in function: remove_Files_Without_Sourcedirectory ** ** ERROR: Saved logfile: /Download_Files/OpenOffice_3.X/Source/ooo/main/instsetoo_native/unxsoli4.pro/OpenOffice/archive/logging/en-US/log_OOO340_en-US.log ** Thu Jan 12 23:17:02 2012 (00:03 min.) dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.archive' ---* tg_merge.mk *--- 1 module(s): instsetoo_native need(s) to be rebuilt Reason(s): ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /Download_Files/OpenOffice_3.X/Source/ooo/main/instsetoo_native/util When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by running: build --all:instsetoo_native *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all'
Re: May I use OpenOffice.org and Apache Incubator logos on OpenOffice.org CD
On 12/01/2012 Donald Whytock wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: The old policy, if I recall correctly, was to allow this kind of usage and a generic usage for community activities. Would you want people to notify the list if/when it happens? Yes, maybe some lightweight process like this; but I understand that, especially before and around the first release, the project might want to have better control over the brand and logo usage. Regards, Andrea.
[BUILD] Re: Missing Library libqstart_gtk.so
Hi Paul, On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 03:11:24PM -0500, Paul Gress wrote: I went and tried compiling again the latest build for Solaris 11, this time with just configure and nothing turned off, including cups and gtk. Previously I was able to fully compile with just gtk turned off. Now I'm hitting a stumbling block, libqstart_gtk.so. Where does this library originate? in module sfx2 The grk system tray is enabled by default if gtk is enabled. Grep ENABLE_SYSTRAY_GTK in configure.in Try rebuilding sfx2, it's quite strange you don't have that library. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpYzBmANjW8u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BUILD]solaris build failed again.
2012/1/15 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org: Hi, On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:15:56PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, you have to update the sources, there was a fix already from Ariel that should solve your problem hopefull Juergen On 1/13/12 12:09 PM, L'oiseau de mer wrote: Today i try to build failure, it appear this error message. Maybe recently have modified some code about gtk? == [ build LNK ] Library/libvclplug_gtk.so Undefined first referenced symbol in file g_thread_init /UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/workdir/CxxObject/vcl/unx/gtk/app/gtkinst.o ld: fatal: symbol referencing errors. No output written to /UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libvclplug_gtk.so make: *** [/UNIX-LAB/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libvclplug_gtk.so] Error 2 can you post the full generated command? Also, the contents of GTK_CFLAGS, GTK_LIBS, GTHREAD_CFLAGS et. al. may be helpful. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina This is my content in SolarisX86Env.Set.sh: GTK_CFLAGS=-I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk -1.0 -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/openwin/include -I/usr/sfw/include -I/usr/s fw/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include GTK_LIBS=-lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lpangoxft-1.0 -lpangox-1.0 -lpa ngo-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf_xlib-2.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lmlib -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodul e-2.0 -lglib-2.0 GTHREAD_CFLAGS=-mt -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include GTHREAD_LIBS=-mt -lgthread-2.0 -lglib-2.0 And my GTK version is 2.4.9 , gthread is 2.4.1.
Re: [build] planning to create new developer snapshots
Hi, On 14.01.2012 18:16, Kay Schenk wrote: 2012/1/10 Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com On 1/10/12 11:23 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, I am planning to create new developer snapshots from the today's revision. Ariel is already using his space on people.apache.org to provide such developer snapshots. I would like to do the same in order to share the effort on such a 'service'. I am able to create builds under Ubuntu 11.10, 32bit (running in a VirtualBox) and Windows 7. @Ariel: May be you can share your 'website' sources/structure. I would use it it for my people.apache.org 'website' Any comments/objections/**improvements? I would suggest that we use only one page where we can link all provided builds. That means if you can provide builds, maybe Ariel can contain them in his overview page. I would add a MacOS build and Linux 64bit on a regular basis. Hi-- OK, just an observation. Currently on the wiki from the main page-- http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page is a link (toward the bottom) of Developer Snapshot Builds which goes to http://download.openoffice.org/next Can you still use THAT service for your builds or , if you chose not to, to replace that link with your new central page. As the builds which Ariel, Jürgen and myself are planning to provide are no official builds I do not think that it is a good idea to link the planned 'download site' prominent and like they are official builds. From my point of view these builds are only intermediate ones until we have official builds from our to be planned setup buildbots. I'm working on some clean up to the Developer FAQs at: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/developer-faqs.html Cool - very very good to have it. and will add in the wiki main page to this. But just thought I'd point out this old link/reference. Best regards, Oliver.
