Re: Site Staging Toward AOO 3.4 (was RE: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed)
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: +1 I am not disagreeing with Drew. I am agreeing that it is important to shed critical path wherever possible. Because there are different contributors involved, the critical path that Drew sees is not impacted by folks working on getting the site rebranded and managing whatever the recognizable critical paths are in prepping the site before the 3.4 release. Of course, we can commit changes and review them in the staging site as often as we wish. As long as we do not *publish* them, no harm, no foul. HOWEVER, its dangerous to think along these lines since the *entire* site gets published, not just individual page changes, unless we can figure how to pick and choose. Something to investigate. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 14:27 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed [ ... ] The number of people who visit the website right now == small The number of people who will visit the website when we have a 3.4 release == very large The number of users who will even notice work-in-progress with the rebranding before 3.4 releases == a fraction of small The number of users who will be harmed by work work-in-progress with the rebranding before 3.4 releases == zero The effort to enable staging of rebranding so it all shows up on the website for the first time coordinated with the 3.4 release == more than zero The effort to include mention of the rebranding along with other communications about the 3.4 release when it happens == almost zero Volunteering to help with rebranding communications when the time comes and to help with rebranding on the web site now == Rob Volunteering to set up staging for the rebranding so it can be flipped on with a switch later == ? Remember, when we get close to the 3.4 release, we're all going to be very busy with other things, both anticipated and not anticipated. The stuff that can be done now should be done now. You don't want to end load tasks like this. What is easy to do, and has practically the same impact, is to delay blog posts, and other far-reaching announcements of the rebranding until the 3.4 release comes out. My $0.02 -Rob [ ... ] -- MzK You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends with strange cats. -- *Colonial American proverb*
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On 1/4/12 9:49 AM, Greg Madden wrote: On 1/2/12 9:57 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different from both, under the name OpenOffice.org and later under the name LibreOffice; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations). But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions. packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require a very experienced packager. you are right and the only chance I see is that users ask for it. To make this happen we have to deliver a good product that users want and that they would prefer over a pre-installed LibreOffice. Especially when it comes to commercial usage in companies this can be a key factor to convince the distros to provide AOO as well. Juergen New to gmail for lists, hope this is clear. I use Debian, it has switched to LO, previously it was Go-Office,( Novell)already forking from pure OO. I have strong differences with how the LO devs are 'enhancing' the product. They have created at least one new feature that breaks backwards compatibility with previous versions of OO. Tableborder/line styles I have a 9 year archive of business reports that would need to be edited to be usable. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38542,; 42750. I have downloaded ver 3.4 from http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/ These work with my archived reports, Not sure how the code flows from one project to the other, my hope is that OO does not duplicate what LO is doing. i can say for sure that we don't use the work of LibreOffice. If we would wanted to do that we simply could not because of the license. Well we would be of course interested in some cleanup work, bug fixes or improvements they have done but we can't use it. So we definitely will have to duplicate some work in the future which is the drawback of the whole license story :-( Juergen
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
2012/1/4 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: On 1/4/12 9:49 AM, Greg Madden wrote: On 1/2/12 9:57 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different from both, under the name OpenOffice.org and later under the name LibreOffice; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations). But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions. packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require a very experienced packager. you are right and the only chance I see is that users ask for it. To make this happen we have to deliver a good product that users want and that they would prefer over a pre-installed LibreOffice. Especially when it comes to commercial usage in companies this can be a key factor to convince the distros to provide AOO as well. Juergen New to gmail for lists, hope this is clear. I use Debian, it has switched to LO, previously it was Go-Office,( Novell)already forking from pure OO. I have strong differences with how the LO devs are 'enhancing' the product. They have created at least one new feature that breaks backwards compatibility with previous versions of OO. Tableborder/line styles I have a 9 year archive of business reports that would need to be edited to be usable. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38542,; 42750. I have downloaded ver 3.4 from http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/ These work with my archived reports, Not sure how the code flows from one project to the other, my hope is that OO does not duplicate what LO is doing. Greg Madden i can say for sure that we don't use the work of LibreOffice. If we would wanted to do that we simply could not because of the license. Well we would be of course interested in some cleanup work, bug fixes or improvements they have done but we can't use it. So we definitely will have to duplicate some work in the future which is the drawback of the whole license story :-( Juergen I sounded a bit negative, frustrated really. LO is doing some fine work. A key point, improvements are not improvements if they break the user experience, Greg
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Greg Madden wrote: 2012/1/4 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: On 1/4/12 9:49 AM, Greg Madden wrote: On 1/2/12 9:57 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different from both, under the name OpenOffice.org and later under the name LibreOffice; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations). But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions. packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require a very experienced packager. you are right and the only chance I see is that users ask for it. To make this happen we have to deliver a good product that users want and that they would prefer over a pre-installed LibreOffice. Especially when it comes to commercial usage in companies this can be a key factor to convince the distros to provide AOO as well. Juergen New to gmail for lists, hope this is clear. I use Debian, it has switched to LO, previously it was Go-Office,( Novell)already forking from pure OO. I have strong differences with how the LO devs are 'enhancing' the product. They have created at least one new feature that breaks backwards compatibility with previous versions of OO. Tableborder/line styles I have a 9 year archive of business reports that would need to be edited to be usable. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38542,; 42750. I have downloaded ver 3.4 from http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/ These work with my archived reports, Not sure how the code flows from one project to the other, my hope is that OO does not duplicate what LO is doing. Greg Madden i can say for sure that we don't use the work of LibreOffice. If we would wanted to do that we simply could not because of the license. Well we would be of course interested in some cleanup work, bug fixes or improvements they have done but we can't use it. So we definitely will have to duplicate some work in the future which is the drawback of the whole license story :-( Juergen I sounded a bit negative, frustrated really. LO is doing some fine work. A key point, improvements are not improvements if they break the user experience, The observation is that LO is being too stringent on documents that outside of Spec. I'll note that this also includes their treatment of MS Office files which i've heard anecdotally in the Apache POI project early last year with PowerPoint. Given that these a specifications with history and imprecision a permissive approach is preferred. The whole point of ODF and OpenOffice should be to preserve the ability to use archived documents well into the future. Regards, Dave Greg
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... This is indeed an on going project. I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running. As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn. (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge... DAVE ;-) The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical. This is moving forward, a little patience is in order. I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority? My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files, should take precedence for branding purpose. In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when they download and install a binary retrieved from the site. I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4 release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most it sounds like. I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application. Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the full blown new name and branding, not the website. just my .02 //drew Regards, Dave A. Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... This is indeed an on going project. I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running. As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn. (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge... DAVE ;-) The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical. This is moving forward, a little patience is in order. I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority? My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files, should take precedence for branding purpose. And why cannot we do both? After all, there are volunteers who can update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++ code. So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding comes at the expense of updating the C++ code. In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when they download and install a binary retrieved from the site. I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4 release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most it sounds like. I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application. Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the full blown new name and branding, not the website. just my .02 I'm not hearing an objection to someone doing the inevitable website branding updates now. It is just that you would prefer yourself to concentrate on the product code? (I'm disregarding for the moment the possibility that you have a opinion on what other volunteers should do. I'm not sure that is entirely relevant. The direction of the project in the end is the sum of our individual preferences for what we want to work on at a given time, not what we want others to work on) //drew Regards, Dave A. Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
See the page- that is properly descriptive so is ok from my standpoint. Something similar with a buildbot link is certainlyreasonable. - Original Message - From: drew d...@baseanswers.com To: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 12:15 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: Some friendly advice is to be careful how you promote that buildbot link. The ASF has very strict rules regarding the promotion of releases versus build artifacts- which are only supposed to be exposed to fellow developers: see http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what HTH Thanks - ok, read that. For a concrete example the OO.o project has historically had a link from the download page to Developer Snapshots: http://www.openoffice.org/download/next/index.html I've noted a number of the developers on the mailing list here bring up the idea of the weekly build - and that is where my thinking was, so where I used buildBot, I'd substitute, this Developer Snapshot which I'd presume will end up coming from the buildBot.. //drew - Original Message - From: drew d...@baseanswers.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... This is indeed an on going project. I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running. As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn. (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge... DAVE ;-) The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical. This is moving forward, a little patience is in order. I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority? My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files, should take precedence for branding purpose. In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when they download and install a binary retrieved from the site. I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4 release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most it sounds like. I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application. Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the full blown new name and branding, not the website. just my .02 //drew Regards, Dave A. Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:34 -0500, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... This is indeed an on going project. I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running. As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn. (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge... DAVE ;-) The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical. This is moving forward, a little patience is in order. I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority? My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files, should take precedence for branding purpose. And why cannot we do both? We can, of course. It's a judgment call regarding timing and sequence. My primary reason for advocating that particular sequence is as an attempt to control, finesse if you will, the conversation in the extended user community and media. As Graham pointed out a few times, rightfully, there are certain at which is natural interest - this next few weeks I would expect to one of those. I believe that the change to the top level branding on the website, particularly if that coincides with an announcement (blog, email, etc) as discussed in another thread, will generate a certain level of conversation. The number of people who visit the website right now == small The number of people who will visit the website when we have a 3.4 release == very large The number of users who will even notice work-in-progress with the rebranding before 3.4 releases == a fraction of small The number of users who will be harmed by work work-in-progress with the rebranding before 3.4 releases == zero The effort to enable staging of rebranding so it all shows up on the website for the first time coordinated with the 3.4 release == more than zero The effort to include mention of the rebranding along with other communications about the 3.4 release when it happens == almost zero Volunteering to help with rebranding communications when the time comes and to help with rebranding on the web site now == Rob Volunteering to set up staging for the rebranding so it can be flipped on with a switch later == ? Remember, when we get close to the 3.4 release, we're all going to be very busy with other things, both anticipated and not anticipated. The stuff that can be done now should be done now. You don't want to end load tasks like this. What is easy to do, and has practically the same impact, is to delay blog posts, and other far-reaching announcements of the rebranding until the 3.4 release comes out. My $0.02 -Rob I also feel it worthwhile to maximize that moment of interest by waiting, which does not mean not working on and staging, on the re-branded launch of the site, if you will, by setting as our trigger the ability to change the link on the website for the Developer Snapshot build to an actual download of Apache OpenOffice. In a real sense, I feel, one then has a conversation not only about the ephemeral changes of a name but substantive conversations about the results of the projects real purpose, to date. Now, as I said it's a subjective call and I recognize it's just my opinion - I won't be hurt if folks as group decide it's not really worth the delay. But again I'm not saying don't start re-branding the web pages and other items [1], only that it's staged work for a coordinated roll out event. //drew [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Presentations It would be great if someone grabbed one of these real quick also.. After all, there are volunteers who can update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++ code. So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding comes at the expense of updating the C++ code. In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is
Site Staging Toward AOO 3.4 (was RE: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed)
+1 I am not disagreeing with Drew. I am agreeing that it is important to shed critical path wherever possible. Because there are different contributors involved, the critical path that Drew sees is not impacted by folks working on getting the site rebranded and managing whatever the recognizable critical paths are in prepping the site before the 3.4 release. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 14:27 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed [ ... ] The number of people who visit the website right now == small The number of people who will visit the website when we have a 3.4 release == very large The number of users who will even notice work-in-progress with the rebranding before 3.4 releases == a fraction of small The number of users who will be harmed by work work-in-progress with the rebranding before 3.4 releases == zero The effort to enable staging of rebranding so it all shows up on the website for the first time coordinated with the 3.4 release == more than zero The effort to include mention of the rebranding along with other communications about the 3.4 release when it happens == almost zero Volunteering to help with rebranding communications when the time comes and to help with rebranding on the web site now == Rob Volunteering to set up staging for the rebranding so it can be flipped on with a switch later == ? Remember, when we get close to the 3.4 release, we're all going to be very busy with other things, both anticipated and not anticipated. The stuff that can be done now should be done now. You don't want to end load tasks like this. What is easy to do, and has practically the same impact, is to delay blog posts, and other far-reaching announcements of the rebranding until the 3.4 release comes out. My $0.02 -Rob [ ... ]
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On 1/2/12 9:57 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different from both, under the name OpenOffice.org and later under the name LibreOffice; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations). But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions. packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require a very experienced packager. you are right and the only chance I see is that users ask for it. To make this happen we have to deliver a good product that users want and that they would prefer over a pre-installed LibreOffice. Especially when it comes to commercial usage in companies this can be a key factor to convince the distros to provide AOO as well. Juergen
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.orgwrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot ended with a system epm. IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable, but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer snapshot. +1 I'm not sure its worth anyone's time to try to do distro-specific builds. If we can get out RPM and Deb packaging, that would be great! Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina -- MzK You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends with strange cats. -- *Colonial American proverb*
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Hi Mechthilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing purposes. There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process over time. Juergen Kind Regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8AHKAACgkQucZfh1OziSt+mwCgtRQh6KZgzlylXCu17u3m6FIe nnAAoIqFOhMoH80TR2+fbhMBW9VXnUQA =TxdM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing purposes. That's what I ask for. There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process over time. So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache? Thats my question Kind Regards Mechtilde Juergen Kind Regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe =ulAm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing purposes. That's what I ask for. There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process over time. So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache? Thats my question Kind Regards Mechtilde Juergen Kind Regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe =ulAm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Greetings Raphael Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing purposes. That's what I ask for. There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process over time. So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache? Thats my question Kind Regards Mechtilde Juergen Kind Regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe =ulAm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 19:41 +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. +1 and just to confirm - I'm using Ariels builds because they work, and I have not been able to say the same about the builds from the buildbot so far. Greetings Raphael Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing purposes. That's what I ask for. There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process over time. So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache? Thats my question Kind Regards Mechtilde Juergen Kind Regards Mechtilde -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe =ulAm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I didn't mean to imply that she is a newbie. She is likely very busy and may have missed some of the threads. I'm only trying to point out what I've seen. My details are not complete as I only glance at the build emails. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 Andrew has been working on the ubuntu build since mid-November. So the project misses builds and the project has been working on the issue. And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Sure and that is to be fixed by engaging in the buildbot development process. Andrew Rist and Gavin are the people to engage. Regards, Dave Greetings Raphael Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing purposes. That's what I ask for. There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process over time. So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache? Thats my question Kind Regards Mechtilde Juergen Kind Regards Mechtilde -BEGIN
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Dave, Am 02.01.2012 19:59, schrieb Dave Fisher: On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I didn't mean to imply that she is a newbie. She is likely very busy and may have missed some of the threads. I'm only trying to point out what I've seen. My details are not complete as I only glance at the build emails. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 What should I see here? That you want to setup Bildbots for Windows Mac and Solaris? Andrew has been working on the ubuntu build since mid-November. So the project misses builds and the project has been working on the issue. Why do you publish nighbtly builds although you know that they doesn't work since 6 weeks as you wrote yourself (Mid of November 2011) And where can I read whether this issue is fixed or not? To update an Ubuntu or a Debian System I only need one day in the worst case but never more. And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Sure and that is to be fixed by engaging in the buildbot development process. Andrew Rist and Gavin are the people to engage. After we have a first working build on Windows and Linux 32 bit and 64 bit we can discuss about a release plan but no day earlier. Kind regards Mechtilde Regards, Dave Greetings Raphael Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test it before a release. For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well. That would help a lot and would probably address most the systems (an update on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) It depends on the based distribution. Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgprjNWRCj5KU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Ariel's unofficial developer builds are now linked to from the podling site. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/developer-faqs.html#where_can_i_download_developer_builds Rob setup this FAQ earlier today and when Ariel posted just now I added the link to her page. Good luck, Certainly the goal for the nightly builds is to do this on a nightly basis ... but that is critical work in progress. Go builders! Go testers! Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Mechtilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Dave, Am 02.01.2012 19:59, schrieb Dave Fisher: On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I didn't mean to imply that she is a newbie. She is likely very busy and may have missed some of the threads. I'm only trying to point out what I've seen. My details are not complete as I only glance at the build emails. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 What should I see here? That you want to setup Bildbots for Windows Mac and Solaris? Andrew has been working on the ubuntu build since mid-November. So the project misses builds and the project has been working on the issue. Why do you publish nighbtly builds although you know that they doesn't work since 6 weeks as you wrote yourself (Mid of November 2011) And where can I read whether this issue is fixed or not? To update an Ubuntu or a Debian System I only need one day in the worst case but never more. And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Sure and that is to be fixed by engaging in the buildbot development process. Andrew Rist and Gavin are the people to engage. After we have a first working build on Windows and Linux 32 bit and 64 bit we can discuss about a release plan but no day earlier. Kind regards Mechtilde Regards, Dave Greetings Raphael Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi Mechtilde, There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed. Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one. Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know... Regards, Dave On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: Hello Jürgen, Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi Mechtilde, On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtildeo...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hey, you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. But: What should a user do? There is no official binary available which anyone can install for testing. The DEB binary from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot. Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries to test from official build maschines. it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible. At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... There
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi Dave Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all. I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list. What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision. For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a nice to have it's a *realy urgent task* And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem. Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot ended with a system epm. IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable, but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer snapshot. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgprpDlLf2jlM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different from both, under the name OpenOffice.org and later under the name LibreOffice; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations). But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future... I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand, so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a universal Linux package. I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different from both, under the name OpenOffice.org and later under the name LibreOffice; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations). But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions. packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require a very experienced packager. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpH0EN6OaEIv.pgp Description: PGP signature
