subject:"Re\: \[RELEASE\] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction"

Am 05/07/2012 11:05 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:

On May 7, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/07/2012 08:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Juergen Schmidt
wrote:

On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 18:33, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:

On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:

On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files

unless

the upload is still ongoing. ...

Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
deb_LG.tar.gz
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
rpm_LG.tar.gz

for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).

All files listed in

http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html<
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/checksums_new_**dl.html>

are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any
longer.

OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be

living

http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/checksums/**
3.4.0_checksums.html<

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/checksums/3.4.0_checksums.html

I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.

And, I do think this needed its own page...

you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it

complicate? I don't understand the reason.

Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)

I can't really give you an explanation except to say this is how it was
done in the past. The current checksums page is quite large...they COULD

tacked on to other.html I guess, but it just seems cleaner this

well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered tables
with different widths looks of course not really professional or what do
others think?

It's not that bad I guess. But sure it would go better.

I've also realized that there are no bullet points display when doing a list with
or.

Probably needs some css magic.

Yes, I would guess either in the "styles.css" or in the
"exceptions.css". Let's see...

I really hope we can revamp the whole page in the future. A cleaner,
simpler design. Consistent translated content with a modern fresh design ;-)

Sure. However, this needs time. An expert can do it maybe in less time. But I'm
just a little volunteer in his spare time that has less knowledge with
HTML/CSS/JS than you with the AOO source code and full time. ;-)

I understand. But, I think Marcus did a GREAT job with this in the time we
had to get this going. A LOT of work really...

We do have a lot of changes and considerations for the future -- no
disagreement from me there. Mock-ups would be appreciated. :)

Or some links to other websites as reference.

These can be on the wiki that Kay will make. There is a whole range. I suspect
that there is some hovering magic we can do, but perhaps simple is best. Our
users don't always have a lot of bandwidth.

You mean this one, right?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Improvements+for+the+download+webpages

More in coming weeks. Great work Marcus, Kay and Jürgen and others!

Thanks. :-)

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Dave Fisher


On May 7, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

> Am 05/07/2012 08:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Juergen Schmidt>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 18:33, Kay Schenk wrote:
 On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
 wrote:
 
> On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files
>>> unless
 the upload is still ongoing. ...
 
 Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
 deb_LG.tar.gz
 Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
 rpm_LG.tar.gz
 
 for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).
>>> All files listed in
>>> 
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html<
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/checksums_new_**dl.html>
>>> >> **org/download/test/checksums_**new_dl.html<
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html>
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any
>>> longer.
>>> 
>> 
>> OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be
>>> living
>> in
>> 
>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/checksums/**
>> 3.4.0_checksums.html<
>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/checksums/3.4.0_checksums.html
 
>> .
>> 
>> I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.
>> 
>> And, I do think this needed its own page...
> you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it
>>> so
> complicate? I don't understand the reason.
> 
> Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)
 
 I can't really give you an explanation except to say this is how it was
 done in the past. The current checksums page is quite large...they COULD
>>> be
 tacked on to other.html I guess, but it just seems cleaner this
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered tables
>>> with different widths looks of course not really professional or what do
>>> others think?
> 
> It's not that bad I guess. But sure it would go better.
> 
> I've also realized that there are no bullet points display when doing a list 
> with  or .

Probably needs some css magic.

>>> I really hope we can revamp the whole page in the future. A cleaner,
>>> simpler design. Consistent translated content with a modern fresh design ;-)
> 
> Sure. However, this needs time. An expert can do it maybe in less time. But 
> I'm just a little volunteer in his spare time that has less knowledge with 
> HTML/CSS/JS than you with the AOO source code and full time. ;-)
> 
>> I understand. But, I think Marcus did a GREAT job with this in the time we
>> had to get this going.  A LOT of work really...
>> 
>> We do have a lot of changes and considerations for the future -- no
>> disagreement from me there.  Mock-ups would be appreciated. :)
> 
> Or some links to other websites as reference.

These can be on the wiki that Kay will make. There is a whole range. I suspect 
that there is some hovering magic we can do, but perhaps simple is best. Our 
users don't always have a lot of bandwidth.

More in coming weeks. Great work Marcus, Kay and Jürgen and others!

Regards,
Dave

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/07/2012 09:08 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 20:53, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Juergen Schmidt wrote:

[3.4.0_checksums.html]






well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered
tables with different widths looks of course not really professional
or what do others think?




Well, I'm glad that Marcus did it, it's not bad and it was very
relieving for me to be able to just link to it from the Italian download
page (which is much worse, by the way... but will gradually get better)
instead of copying and pasting the MD5SUMs as usual.


I think more of an automatic generated table or table snippet  that can be easy 
used in other pages as well (included translated pages). A unique design where 
only the language changed makes a lot of things easier.


For the RC and Beta releases there was already an automatically created 
table with download links working. But not for the "other.html" webpage 
as there was no pattern that could be followed.


But even this is on the list for improvements as we now will release all 
languages and platforms as the same time. This will make things easier.



It's indeed painful todo it manually, believe me I did often enough in the wiki 
in the past weeks.

When I like something at LibO then it is their cleaner webpage. But don't get 
me wrong we can and will find our own way to provide a clean page in the future.

It is not only the technical realization but also the design and I hope some 
volunteer web designer will be interested to proof their skills here in the 
future ;-)


Yes, this would be also my wish. Best way to improve the design.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/07/2012 08:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Juergen Schmidt
wrote:



On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 18:33, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:


On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:


On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:

On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:


It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files

unless

the upload is still ongoing. ...

Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
deb_LG.tar.gz
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
rpm_LG.tar.gz

for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).

All files listed in


http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html<
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/checksums_new_**dl.html>







are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any
longer.



OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be

living

in

http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/checksums/**
3.4.0_checksums.html<

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/checksums/3.4.0_checksums.html



.

I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.

And, I do think this needed its own page...

you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it

so

complicate? I don't understand the reason.

Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)


I can't really give you an explanation except to say this is how it was
done in the past. The current checksums page is quite large...they COULD

be

tacked on to other.html I guess, but it just seems cleaner this





well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered tables
with different widths looks of course not really professional or what do
others think?


It's not that bad I guess. But sure it would go better.

I've also realized that there are no bullet points display when doing a 
list with  or .



I really hope we can revamp the whole page in the future. A cleaner,
simpler design. Consistent translated content with a modern fresh design ;-)


Sure. However, this needs time. An expert can do it maybe in less time. 
But I'm just a little volunteer in his spare time that has less 
knowledge with HTML/CSS/JS than you with the AOO source code and full 
time. ;-)



I understand. But, I think Marcus did a GREAT job with this in the time we
had to get this going.  A LOT of work really...

We do have a lot of changes and considerations for the future -- no
disagreement from me there.  Mock-ups would be appreciated. :)


Or some links to other websites as reference.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On May 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>
> > Am 05/07/2012 11:00 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >> On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >>> Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>  On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >> The checksums file is ready:
> >>
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
> >
> > It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
> > mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody,
> so
> > OK.
> >
> > I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
> > builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
> > and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
> > around on
> > that page and you will see plenty of broken links.
> 
>  we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, for sure.
> >>>
>  I have drafted the download page on the project page.
> >>>
> >>> That's good.
> >>>
> >>> An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
> >>> archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.
> >>>
>  http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html
> 
>  Review is appreciated.
> 
>  - downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
>  - SDK as well
>  - checksum files directly from dist
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any special reason to show download links also here?
> >>
> >> I initially had only the source files listed there but based on some
> >> discussion (email) to use the Apache mirrors for the SDK as well I
> >> decided to list the SDK here as well.
> >>
> >> I think it is common to list at least the source tarballs on this
> >> download page directly because the src tarballs are very important for
> >> Apache. Well for most of our users the binaries are more important but
> >> for that we have the 1-click downloads on www.openoffice.org
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. These are good arguments - also because we are
> actually just one of many ASF podlings.
> >
> > However, it is still another location to take care for any changes.
>
> I would like to have a release defined by an xml and/or doap files which
> can be transformed using xslt and other tools into download webpages in
> either html or mdtext. These files would also be useful for other project
> processes.
>
> That would become the one place for the build, qa, release, and website.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
Maybe next week, I will start on a new "spec" page for our DL functions. It
will be very general but I'm hoping we can use a wiki page for
brainstorming about data structures, logic , output, etc.  So, this is a
good idea. Stay tuned...

>
> > My 2 ct.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >> All is
> >>> (will be) available in the download area (currently here:
> >>> "http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html";
> and
> >>> "http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
> >>> existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
> >>> downloads.
> >>>
> >>> Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
> >>> SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
> >>> Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
> >>> Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html
> >>>
> >>> If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point
> also
> >>> here to the respective webpage:
> >>> "http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.
> >>>
> >>> If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
> >>> link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.
> >>>
> >>> Marcus
>
>


-- 

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Dave Fisher


On May 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

> Am 05/07/2012 11:00 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
 On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> The checksums file is ready:
>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
> 
> It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
> mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
> OK.
> 
> I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
> builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
> and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
> around on
> that page and you will see plenty of broken links.
 
 we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)
>>> 
>>> Yes, for sure.
>>> 
 I have drafted the download page on the project page.
>>> 
>>> That's good.
>>> 
>>> An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
>>> archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.
>>> 
 http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html
 
 Review is appreciated.
 
 - downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
 - SDK as well
 - checksum files directly from dist
>>> 
>>> Do you have any special reason to show download links also here?
>> 
>> I initially had only the source files listed there but based on some
>> discussion (email) to use the Apache mirrors for the SDK as well I
>> decided to list the SDK here as well.
>> 
>> I think it is common to list at least the source tarballs on this
>> download page directly because the src tarballs are very important for
>> Apache. Well for most of our users the binaries are more important but
>> for that we have the 1-click downloads on www.openoffice.org
> 
> Don't get me wrong. These are good arguments - also because we are actually 
> just one of many ASF podlings.
> 
> However, it is still another location to take care for any changes.

I would like to have a release defined by an xml and/or doap files which can be 
transformed using xslt and other tools into download webpages in either html or 
mdtext. These files would also be useful for other project processes.

That would become the one place for the build, qa, release, and website. 

Regards,
Dave


> 
> My 2 ct.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
>> All is
>>> (will be) available in the download area (currently here:
>>> "http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html"; and
>>> "http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).
>>> 
>>> Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
>>> existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
>>> downloads.
>>> 
>>> Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
>>> SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
>>> Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
>>> Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html
>>> 
>>> If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also
>>> here to the respective webpage:
>>> "http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.
>>> 
>>> If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
>>> link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.
>>> 
>>> Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/07/2012 11:37 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)


Yes, for sure.


I have drafted the download page on the project page.


That's good.

An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.


http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist


Do you have any special reason to show download links also here? All is
(will be) available in the download area (currently here:
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html"; and
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).

Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
downloads.

Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html


by the way why do you have created a new checksums file and not extended
the other.html. I think there is enough place and the context is much
clearer as on a further page.


The context would fit, yes. But IMHO there is no place left.
If it would be combined than every table cell would have 5 download 
links. much to much to keep it simple.


A better idea is to integrate the hash links into the green box. And 
this came from you. :-) It's on the list for improvements and I'll try 
to do it after the first dust has settle. Then the separate webpage is 
just a fallback.


Marcus


If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also
here to the respective webpage:
"http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.

If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/07/2012 11:00 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)


Yes, for sure.


I have drafted the download page on the project page.


That's good.

An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.


http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist


Do you have any special reason to show download links also here?


I initially had only the source files listed there but based on some
discussion (email) to use the Apache mirrors for the SDK as well I
decided to list the SDK here as well.

I think it is common to list at least the source tarballs on this
download page directly because the src tarballs are very important for
Apache. Well for most of our users the binaries are more important but
for that we have the 1-click downloads on www.openoffice.org


Don't get me wrong. These are good arguments - also because we are 
actually just one of many ASF podlings.


However, it is still another location to take care for any changes.

My 2 ct.

Marcus




All is

(will be) available in the download area (currently here:
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html"; and
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).

Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
downloads.

Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html

If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also
here to the respective webpage:
"http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.

If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/07/2012 07:15 PM, schrieb Claudio Filho:

2012/5/5 Marcus (OOo):

However, the Debian project has initiated this Firefox fork and therefore I
think it's OK to assume that the very most Iceweasel browser are running on
Debian, Ubuntu&  Co.


No. Isn't exactly in this way, Marcus. This problem happens only with
Debian in function of disagree between Mozilla and Debian about the


Yes, but that is what I wrote.


use of trademark and brand. Ubuntu have a agreement with Mozilla for
free user of brand.


OK, that is indeed new for me. Thanks for the info.

Marcus


In the same situation is the Waterfox[1], but i haven't a win64 to test.
[1]http://waterfoxproject.org/

Claudio

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Juergen Schmidt

On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 20:53, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Juergen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > [3.4.0_checksums.html]
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered
> > tables with different widths looks of course not really professional
> > or what do others think?
> > 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm glad that Marcus did it, it's not bad and it was very 
> relieving for me to be able to just link to it from the Italian download 
> page (which is much worse, by the way... but will gradually get better) 
> instead of copying and pasting the MD5SUMs as usual.
> 
I think more of an automatic generated table or table snippet  that can be easy 
used in other pages as well (included translated pages). A unique design where 
only the language changed makes a lot of things easier.
It's indeed painful todo it manually, believe me I did often enough in the wiki 
in the past weeks.

When I like something at LibO then it is their cleaner webpage. But don't get 
me wrong we can and will find our own way to provide a clean page in the future.

It is not only the technical realization but also the design and I hope some 
volunteer web designer will be interested to proof their skills here in the 
future ;-)

Juergen

> Regards,
> Andrea.
> 
>

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Juergen Schmidt wrote:

[3.4.0_checksums.html]

well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered
tables with different widths looks of course not really professional
or what do others think?


Well, I'm glad that Marcus did it, it's not bad and it was very 
relieving for me to be able to just link to it from the Italian download 
page (which is much worse, by the way... but will gradually get better) 
instead of copying and pasting the MD5SUMs as usual.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Juergen Schmidt  wrote:

> On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 18:33, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files
> unless
> > > > > > the upload is still ongoing. ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
> > > > > > deb_LG.tar.gz
> > > > > > Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
> > > > > > rpm_LG.tar.gz
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).
> > > > > All files listed in
> > > > >
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html<
> http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/checksums_new_**dl.html>
> > > > >  **org/download/test/checksums_**new_dl.html<
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any
> > > > > longer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be
> living
> > > > in
> > > >
> > > > http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/checksums/**
> > > > 3.4.0_checksums.html<
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/checksums/3.4.0_checksums.html
> >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.
> > > >
> > > > And, I do think this needed its own page...
> > > you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it
> so
> > > complicate? I don't understand the reason.
> > >
> > > Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)
> >
> > I can't really give you an explanation except to say this is how it was
> > done in the past. The current checksums page is quite large...they COULD
> be
> > tacked on to other.html I guess, but it just seems cleaner this
> >
> >
>
>
> well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered tables
> with different widths looks of course not really professional or what do
> others think?
>
> I really hope we can revamp the whole page in the future. A cleaner,
> simpler design. Consistent translated content with a modern fresh design ;-)
>

I understand. But, I think Marcus did a GREAT job with this in the time we
had to get this going.  A LOT of work really...

We do have a lot of changes and considerations for the future -- no
disagreement from me there.  Mock-ups would be appreciated. :)




> Juergen
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ..back in a bit after I deal with personal home related issues.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Andrea.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> 
> > MzK
> >
> > "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> > And life has a funny way of helping you out
> > Helping you out."
> > -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Claudio Filho

Hi

2012/5/5 Marcus (OOo) :
> However, the Debian project has initiated this Firefox fork and therefore I
> think it's OK to assume that the very most Iceweasel browser are running on
> Debian, Ubuntu & Co.

No. Isn't exactly in this way, Marcus. This problem happens only with
Debian in function of disagree between Mozilla and Debian about the
use of trademark and brand. Ubuntu have a agreement with Mozilla for
free user of brand.

In the same situation is the Waterfox[1], but i haven't a win64 to test.
[1]http://waterfoxproject.org/

Claudio

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Juergen Schmidt

On Monday, 7. May 2012 at 18:33, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> wrote:
>  
> > On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >  
> > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti
> > > wrote:
> > >  
> > > On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files unless
> > > > > the upload is still ongoing. ...
> > > > >  
> > > > > Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
> > > > > deb_LG.tar.gz
> > > > > Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
> > > > > rpm_LG.tar.gz
> > > > >  
> > > > > for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).
> > > > All files listed in
> > > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
> > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any
> > > > longer.
> > > >  
> > >  
> > > OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be living
> > > in
> > >  
> > > http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/checksums/**
> > > 3.4.0_checksums.html
> > > .
> > >  
> > > I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.
> > >  
> > > And, I do think this needed its own page...
> > you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it so
> > complicate? I don't understand the reason.
> >  
> > Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)
>  
> I can't really give you an explanation except to say this is how it was
> done in the past. The current checksums page is quite large...they COULD be
> tacked on to other.html I guess, but it just seems cleaner this  
>  
>  


well a lot of room for improvements. The pages with the centered tables with 
different widths looks of course not really professional or what do others 
think?

I really hope we can revamp the whole page in the future. A cleaner, simpler 
design. Consistent translated content with a modern fresh design ;-)

Juergen
>  
>  
> >  
> > Juergen
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > > ..back in a bit after I deal with personal home related issues.
> > >  
> > >  
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Andrea.
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
>  
>  
>  
> --  
> 
> MzK
>  
> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> And life has a funny way of helping you out
> Helping you out."
> -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>  
>

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:

> On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>>  It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files unless
 the upload is still ongoing. ...

 Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
 deb_LG.tar.gz
 Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-
 rpm_LG.tar.gz

 for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).


>>> All files listed in
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
>>> 
>>> >
>>>
>>> are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any
>>> longer.
>>>
>>>
>> OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be living
>> in
>>
>>  http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/checksums/**
>> 3.4.0_checksums.html
>> .
>>
>>  I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.
>>
>> And, I do think this needed its own page...
>>
> you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it so
> complicate? I don't understand the reason.
>
> Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)
>

I can't really give you an explanation except to say this is how it was
done in the past. The current checksums page is quite large...they COULD be
tacked on to other.html I guess, but it just seems cleaner this way.


>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
>> ..back in a bit after I deal with personal home related issues.
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>  Andrea.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 5/7/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:


On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:


It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files unless
the upload is still ongoing. ...

Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_**3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-**deb_LG.tar.gz
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_**3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-**rpm_LG.tar.gz
for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).



All files listed in
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/checksums_new_**dl.html
are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any longer.



OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be living in

  http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/checksums/3.4.0_checksums.html.

  I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.

And, I do think this needed its own page...
you mean the checksums have to be on a separate page? Why? Why make it 
so complicate? I don't understand the reason.


Pleas explain it to me, I am eager to learn ;-)

Juergen




..back in a bit after I deal with personal home related issues.



Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files unless
>> the upload is still ongoing. ...
>>
>> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_**3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-**deb_LG.tar.gz
>> Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_**3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-**rpm_LG.tar.gz
>> for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).
>>
>
> All files listed in
> http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/checksums_new_**dl.html
> are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any longer.
>

OK, thanks for this...the "official" checksums file should now be living in

 http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/checksums/3.4.0_checksums.html.

 I need tomake sure this is the most recent version before moving on.

And, I do think this needed its own page...

..back in a bit after I deal with personal home related issues.

>
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
>



-- 

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 06/05/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files unless
the upload is still ongoing. ...
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_LG.tar.gz
Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_LG.tar.gz
for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).


All files listed in
http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
are now available. So now there shouldn't be any missing files any longer.

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)


Yes, for sure.


I have drafted the download page on the project page.


That's good.

An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.


http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist


Do you have any special reason to show download links also here? All is
(will be) available in the download area (currently here:
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html"; and
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).

Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
downloads.

Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html


by the way why do you have created a new checksums file and not extended 
the other.html. I think there is enough place and the context is much 
clearer as on a further page.


Juergen



If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also
here to the respective webpage:
"http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.

If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Jürgen Schmidt


On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)


Yes, for sure.


I have drafted the download page on the project page.


That's good.

An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.


http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist


Do you have any special reason to show download links also here?


I initially had only the source files listed there but based on some 
discussion (email) to use the Apache mirrors for the SDK as well I 
decided to list the SDK here as well.


I think it is common to list at least the source tarballs on this 
download page directly because the src tarballs are very important for
Apache. Well for most of our users the binaries are more important but 
for that we have the 1-click downloads on www.openoffice.org


Juergen


All is

(will be) available in the download area (currently here:
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html"; and
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).

Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
downloads.

Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html

If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also
here to the respective webpage:
"http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.

If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-07 Thread Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi

On 04.05.2012 18:32, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann<
orwittm...@googlemail.com>  wrote:

[snip]




@All:
Can others please test on Windows with MSIE and Firefox? I really hope
it's just
my Windows XP (in a Virtualbox VM).



Here are my results:

Windows 7, en-US:
- Firefox 10.0.4, en-US
window.location.href
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze
navigator.platform  Win32
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()win32
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (windows nt 6.1;
wow64; rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4
navigator.language  en-US

navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
==>  getting AOO 3.4 en-US download on .../test/index_new.dl

- Windows Internet Explorer 9
window.location.href
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze
navigator.platform  Win32
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase() win32
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1;
WOW64; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E)
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase() mozilla/5.0 (compatible; msie 9.0;
windows nt 6.1; wow64; trident/5.0; slcc2; .net clr 2.0.50727; .net clr
3.5.30729; .net clr 3.0.30729; media center pc 6.0; .net4.0c; .net4.0e)
navigator.language undefined
navigator.userLanguage de
navigator.systemLanguage en-us
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
==>  getting AOO 3.4 de download on .../test/index_new.dl

==**
Windows 7, de
- Firefox 10.0.4, en-US
window.location.href
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze
navigator.platform  Win32
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()win32
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (windows nt 6.1;
wow64; rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4
navigator.language  en-US

navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
==>  getting AOO 3.4 en-US download on .../test/index_new.dl

- Windows Internet Explorer 8
window.location.href  
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze
navigator.platform  Win32
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()  win32
navigator.userAgent  Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1;
WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; InfoPath.3)
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase() mozilla/4.0 (compatible; msie 8.0;
windows nt6.1; wow64; trident/4.0; slcc2; .net clr 2.0.50727; .net clr
3.5.30729; .net clr 3.0.30729; media center pc 6.0; .net4.0c; infopath.3)

navigator.language  undefined
navigator.userLanguage  de
navigator.systemLanguage de
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
==>  getting AOO 3.4 de download on .../test/index_new.dl


Best regards, Oliver.



OK, bottom line -- all OK, right?




I am not sure, because different browsers on the same system provides me 
different languague packages.


But, I think it is because of my mixed environments:
System 1:
- 'en-US 'Windows 7 + same user configurations (keyboard, time zone, time 
format, location, ...) set to 'de' with 'en-US' FireFox and 'en-US' Windows 
Internet Explorer.

System 2:
- 'de' Windows 7 with 'en-US' FireFox and 'de' Windows Internet Explorer

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-06 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

so the files are now available on dist. It was a tiny typo in my script.


It's much improved now, but it seems we still miss several files unless 
the upload is still ongoing.


The (updated) list is at
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt
but the pattern is rather clear: we miss

Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_LG.tar.gz

Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_LG.tar.gz

for virtually all values of LG (ar, cs, de and so on).

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/06/2012 08:46 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:


Am 05/06/2012 07:39 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

  On 5/6/12 7:28 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:



Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:


On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:


Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:


Marcus (OOo) wrote:


http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**

checksums_new_dl.html





  Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no

localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds


@Andrea:

You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?



I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64
missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of
broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it
seems to match the list of missing files):

http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/missing-**checksums.txt



Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
are missing.



yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.



I think when en-GB gets diabled in "languages.js", then the green box
can point to the "other.html" webpage. And on that webpage we can leave
Mac OS and Windows as available. Or we drop it completely.



en-GB is removed from dist after I have talked with infra people in IRC

It is cleaner and better to have it removed completely.

So please remove en-GB from the supported language list for 3.4. It will
be part of the net micro update 3.4.1 with the updated localization



OK, committed. The testing webpages should be up-to-date.



wow! great work Marcus...OK, I just set up en-gb as non-supported on the
mirrors so we should be ok with this one now. set up correctly in staging.


Thanks for taking care so fast. :-)

Marcus


  Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version

string. But it has to be "3.4.0".



that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4



OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.

Marcus

  The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list

and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/files/localized/**
en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_**incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_**
install_en-GB.exe.sha512





http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/files/localized/**
en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_**incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_**
langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512





Marcus










--

Ciao

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-06 Thread Kay Schenk

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 05/06/2012 07:39 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>  On 5/6/12 7:28 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>>> Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>
 On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

> Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>
>> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**
>>> checksums_new_dl.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no
> localized
> Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds
>
 @Andrea:
>>> You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
>>> that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
>>> other files?
>>>
>>
>> I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64
>> missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of
>> broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it
>> seems to match the list of missing files):
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/missing-**checksums.txt
>>
>
> Thanks a lot for the list. :-)
>
> I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
> (the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
> combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
> are missing.
>

 yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
 en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

 That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

>>>
>>> I think when en-GB gets diabled in "languages.js", then the green box
>>> can point to the "other.html" webpage. And on that webpage we can leave
>>> Mac OS and Windows as available. Or we drop it completely.
>>>
>>
>> en-GB is removed from dist after I have talked with infra people in IRC
>>
>> It is cleaner and better to have it removed completely.
>>
>> So please remove en-GB from the supported language list for 3.4. It will
>> be part of the net micro update 3.4.1 with the updated localization
>>
>
> OK, committed. The testing webpages should be up-to-date.
>

wow! great work Marcus...OK, I just set up en-gb as non-supported on the
mirrors so we should be ok with this one now. set up correctly in staging.


>
> Marcus
>
>
>  Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
> string. But it has to be "3.4.0".
>

 that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

>>>
>>> OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>  The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
> and from the checksums webpage:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/files/localized/**
> en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_**incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_**
> install_en-GB.exe.sha512
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/files/localized/**
> en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_**incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_**
> langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512
>
>
>
>
>
> Marcus
>



-- 

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

Am 05/06/2012 07:39 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 7:28 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64
missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of
broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it
seems to match the list of missing files):

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt

Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
are missing.

yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

I think when en-GB gets diabled in "languages.js", then the green box
can point to the "other.html" webpage. And on that webpage we can leave
Mac OS and Windows as available. Or we drop it completely.

en-GB is removed from dist after I have talked with infra people in IRC

It is cleaner and better to have it removed completely.

So please remove en-GB from the supported language list for 3.4. It will
be part of the net micro update 3.4.1 with the updated localization

OK, committed. The testing webpages should be up-to-date.

Marcus

Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".

that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.

Marcus

The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


On 5/6/12 7:38 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi Jürgen,

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 07:14:14PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
are missing.


yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we
drop en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.


I may have missed when you told what languages to build, I was building
the same set of languages we've been building so far for the Dev's
Snapshots https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sL2oAQ
that is
--with-lang="ar cs de en-US es fi fr gl hu it ja nl pt-BR ru zh-CN zh-TW"


It was my fault, don't worry. As I mentioned I have already dropped it 
from dist. We will include it for 3.4.1.



Juergen

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

On 5/6/12 7:28 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt

Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

en-GB is removed from dist after I have talked with infra people in IRC

It is cleaner and better to have it removed completely.

So please remove en-GB from the supported language list for 3.4. It will
be part of the net micro update 3.4.1 with the updated localization

Juergen

Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".

that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.

Marcus

The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-06 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

Hi Jürgen,

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 07:14:14PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
> >(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
> >combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
> >are missing.
> 
> yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we
> drop en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.
> 
> That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

I may have missed when you told what languages to build, I was building
the same set of languages we've been building so far for the Dev's
Snapshots https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sL2oAQ
that is 
--with-lang="ar cs de en-US es fi fr gl hu it ja nl pt-BR ru zh-CN zh-TW"


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgp2FdXNjqm0f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt

Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".

that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.

Marcus

The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/06/2012 06:50 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 5:45 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 05:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html





It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody,
so OK.




Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for
hashes.

Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.




Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same
for the hash files, as you can see here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.


Great. Hopefully enough time to upload them, too.


so the files are now available on dist. It was a tiny typo in my script.


OK, I will wait until they are finally visible.


A clear pointer or private email a little bit earlier would have been
great ;-) I simply have overseen it. I thought I had double checked it.


You are right. Sorry for too less visibility.

Please see also my response in this thread to Andrea's post with his 
list. There are some more mistakes.


Marcus


Do you know of more missing files?


No.

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

Thanks

Marcus




I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*

Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt

Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".

that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

Juergen

The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


On 5/6/12 6:50 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 5/6/12 5:45 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 05:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html





It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody,
so OK.




Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for
hashes.

Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.




Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same
for the hash files, as you can see here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.


Great. Hopefully enough time to upload them, too.


so the files are now available on dist. It was a tiny typo in my script.

A clear pointer or private email a little bit earlier would have been
great ;-) I simply have overseen it. I thought I had double checked it.


We have to take care of en-GB, we have no Linux packages for en-GB. I 
stumbled over this fact when I again double checked the dist folder.


I would suggest that we drop it completely if it is to complicate to 
adapt the download script.


I have an updated localization for en-GB anyway and we can include it in 
the next run.


I don't see it too critical.

Juergen




Juergen





Do you know of more missing files?


No.

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

Thanks

Marcus




I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*

Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt

Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".

The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


On 5/6/12 5:45 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 05:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html




It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody,
so OK.




Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for
hashes.

Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.




Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same
for the hash files, as you can see here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.


Great. Hopefully enough time to upload them, too.


so the files are now available on dist. It was a tiny typo in my script.

A clear pointer or private email a little bit earlier would have been 
great ;-) I simply have overseen it. I thought I had double checked it.


Juergen





Do you know of more missing files?


No.

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

Thanks

Marcus




I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*

Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-06 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?


I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64 
missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of 
broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it 
seems to match the list of missing files):


http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/06/2012 05:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html




It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so OK.




Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for
hashes.

Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.




Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same
for the hash files, as you can see here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.


Great. Hopefully enough time to upload them, too.


Do you know of more missing files?


No.

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm 
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen 
other files?


Thanks

Marcus




I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*

Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-06 Thread Juergen Schmidt

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> > On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> > > The checksums file is ready:
> > > http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
> > mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so OK.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO 
> for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for 
> hashes.
> 
> Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think 
> this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we 
> will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.
> 
> > I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
> > builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
> > and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
> > that page and you will see plenty of broken links.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized 
> Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same 
> for the hash files, as you can see here:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/
I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.

Do you know of more missing files? 

Juergen 
> 
> I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF 
> mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)


Yes, for sure.


I have drafted the download page on the project page.


That's good.

An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail 
archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.



http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist


Do you have any special reason to show download links also here? All is 
(will be) available in the download area (currently here:
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html"; and 
"http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html";).


Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already 
existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating 
downloads.


Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
SDK--> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html

If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also 
here to the respective webpage: 
"http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html";.


If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this 
link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html";.


Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so OK.


Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO 
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for 
hashes.


Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think 
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we 
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.



I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized 
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same 
for the hash files, as you can see here:


http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF 
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*


Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)

I have drafted the download page on the project page.

http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-06 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification 
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so OK.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows 
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known 
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on 
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/05/2012 06:47 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:


Am 05/05/2012 02:55 PM, schrieb Claudio Filho:

  2012/5/5 Marcus (OOo):



The platform seems not recognized. Please post what you get from this
webpage:



My results.

Claudio


- Chromium 18.0.1025.168~r134367-1 -
navigator.platform: Linux i686
navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64)
AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168
Safari/535.19
navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
safari/535.19
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Linux
getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform  Linux i686
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()linux i686
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.19
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168 Safari/535.19
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
safari/535.19
navigator.language  pt-BR
navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes



Chrome is available for rpm- and deb-based Linux. Unfortunately, the
"navigator.userAgent" doesn't show an indicator to split into rpm or deb,
so it defaults to rpm. Maybe we are at the limit to recognize and provide
the correct URL for download.

If you - or someone else - knows about how to recognize Chrome browser on
rpm and deb Linux, please tell us.


  - Iceweasel (FFox) 10.0.4esr-2 --

navigator.platform: Linux x86_64
navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Linux x86-64
getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform  Linux x86_64
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()linux x86_64
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.language  pt-BR
navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes



The DL magic checks if "navigator.userAgent" contains the term "debian".
If so, a URL with a deb package will be created.
Here it seems we have to extend it with the term "iceweasel".



Yes, your analysis is correct. Since I don't use debian, or any of it's
derivatives, I didn't know what we should expect here. Is "iceweasel"
something  ONLY used by debian distros? I'm confused...


I'm pretty sure that it's technically possible to use it also on Fedora 
& Co.


However, the Debian project has initiated this Firefox fork and 
therefore I think it's OK to assume that the very most Iceweasel browser 
are running on Debian, Ubuntu & Co.


Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-05 Thread Kay Schenk

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 05/05/2012 12:24 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>  On 5/5/12 4:03 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>>> Am 05/05/2012 12:08 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>

 On May 4, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

  Am 05/04/2012 06:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> **wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> I have tested http://ooo-site.staging.**apac**
>>> he.org/download/test/** 
>>> index_new_dl.html>> download/test/index_new_dl.**html
>>> >on
>>>
>>> MacOS 10.7.3 with Firefox 12.0 and Safari 5.1.5
>>>
>>> In both cases the click on the download butotn give me the correct
>>> download, perfect ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> YAY!
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Some questions as release manager:
>>>
>>> - the link "Searching for another version? Get all platforms,
>>> languages,
>>> language packs" guide me on an old page. Do we have the new page
>>> with the
>>> reduced number of released languages already in place?
>>>
>>>
>> yes, we do...it is not linked in and will need to retaing its
>> current name
>> but you can see the new version at:
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/other_new_dl.**html
>>
>
> I've created yesterday evening a first draft. So, please don't see it
> as written in stone. And some links are not yet working.
>


>  Does "source archives" on this page provide links to our source
>>> release?
>>>
>>>
>> see above page...
>>
>
> Yes, there is a little section to provide links to the source files
> (should be from Apache only).
>

 This is what should be from the Apache Mirrors and not /dist/. You can
 use the cgi url that Joe has provided.

 (This is item no 10.)

 Let me know if you would like me to do these changes on the new other
 page.

>>>
>>> I've tried to use the aoo-closer.cgi script in the URL. But it doesn't
>>> work yet. Do you see anything incorrect in the URL?
>>>
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-**closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.**
>> 0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-**src.zip[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.**sha512]
>>
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-**closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.**
>> 0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-**src.tar.gz[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.**sha512]
>>
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-**closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.**
>> 0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-**src.tar.bz2[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.**sha512]
>>
>
> Ah, it's "3.4.0" instead of "3.4". Thanks Juergen.
>
> I don't get a download file but a webpage with a choice of many links.
> When clicking on one I get the download. I think this is intended, right?


yes...this is what will happen...a list of mirrors from which the user
chooses.


>
>
>  - the link "Release Notes"
>>> Do we have it in place as html file that fits in here? I know we
>>> have it
>>> in the wiki and there as html as well. But is the plan here?
>>>
>>>
>> I just sent out a note about this. We have one in development but
>> it's not
>> where it should be.
>>
>>
>>  - the "MD5 checksums"
>>> I have read that we will probably change it to "Signatures and
>>> Hashes". Do
>>> we have the page/script behind it?
>>>
>>> Or should we simply provide 4 links ASC, MD5, SHA1, SHA512 with a
>>> simple
>>> script appending the correct extension. Everything else should be
>>> in place
>>> already.
>>>
>>>
>> This is a BIG unanswered question at the moment-- please see the
>>
>> "Distributing AOO 3.4: The 22 things we need to do before we announce"
>>
>> thread...Rob's last comments...
>>
>
> I can create also a webpage with links to all checksums. Shouldn't be
> a problem.
>

 Link to the signatures on /dist/. These are the trusted source. The
 page should explain how to verify the sigs. There are many examples.

>>>
>>> The checksums file is ready:
>>>
>>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**
>>> checksums_new_dl.html
>>>
>>> Just the part "How to use checksums?" needs to be filled with text. I'll
>>> do this tomorrow.
>>>
>>
>> y

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-05 Thread Kay Schenk

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 05/05/2012 02:55 PM, schrieb Claudio Filho:
>
>  2012/5/5 Marcus (OOo):
>>
>>> The platform seems not recognized. Please post what you get from this
>>> webpage:
>>>
>>
>> My results.
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>> - Chromium 18.0.1025.168~r134367-1 -
>> navigator.platform: Linux i686
>> navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64)
>> AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168
>> Safari/535.19
>> navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
>> applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
>> safari/535.19
>> navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
>> getLink(): undefined
>> getPlatform(): Linux
>> getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)
>>
>>
>> window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
>> download/test/analyze.html
>> navigator.platform  Linux i686
>> navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()linux i686
>> navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.19
>> (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168 Safari/535.19
>> navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
>> applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
>> safari/535.19
>> navigator.language  pt-BR
>> navigator.userLanguage  undefined
>> navigator.systemLanguageundefined
>> navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
>>
>
> Chrome is available for rpm- and deb-based Linux. Unfortunately, the
> "navigator.userAgent" doesn't show an indicator to split into rpm or deb,
> so it defaults to rpm. Maybe we are at the limit to recognize and provide
> the correct URL for download.
>
> If you - or someone else - knows about how to recognize Chrome browser on
> rpm and deb Linux, please tell us.
>
>
>  - Iceweasel (FFox) 10.0.4esr-2 --
>> navigator.platform: Linux x86_64
>> navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
>> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
>> navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
>> rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
>> navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
>> getLink(): undefined
>> getPlatform(): Linux x86-64
>> getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)
>>
>>
>> window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
>> download/test/analyze.html
>> navigator.platform  Linux x86_64
>> navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()linux x86_64
>> navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
>> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
>> navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
>> rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
>> navigator.language  pt-BR
>> navigator.userLanguage  undefined
>> navigator.systemLanguageundefined
>> navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
>>
>
> The DL magic checks if "navigator.userAgent" contains the term "debian".
> If so, a URL with a deb package will be created.
> Here it seems we have to extend it with the term "iceweasel".


Yes, your analysis is correct. Since I don't use debian, or any of it's
derivatives, I didn't know what we should expect here. Is "iceweasel"
something  ONLY used by debian distros? I'm confused...



>
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Marcus
>



-- 

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction


Am 05/05/2012 02:55 PM, schrieb Claudio Filho:

2012/5/5 Marcus (OOo):

The platform seems not recognized. Please post what you get from this
webpage:


My results.

Claudio


- Chromium 18.0.1025.168~r134367-1 -
navigator.platform: Linux i686
navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64)
AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168
Safari/535.19
navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
safari/535.19
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Linux
getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform  Linux i686
navigator.platform.toLowerCase()linux i686
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.19
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168 Safari/535.19
navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
safari/535.19
navigator.language  pt-BR
navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes


Chrome is available for rpm- and deb-based Linux. Unfortunately, the 
"navigator.userAgent" doesn't show an indicator to split into rpm or 
deb, so it defaults to rpm. Maybe we are at the limit to recognize and 
provide the correct URL for download.


If you - or someone else - knows about how to recognize Chrome browser 
on rpm and deb Linux, please tell us.



- Iceweasel (FFox) 10.0.4esr-2 --
navigator.platform: Linux x86_64
navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Linux x86-64
getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform  Linux x86_64
navigator.platform.toLowerCase()linux x86_64
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.language  pt-BR
navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes


The DL magic checks if "navigator.userAgent" contains the term "debian". 
If so, a URL with a deb package will be created.

Here it seems we have to extend it with the term "iceweasel".

Thanks for your help.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-05 Thread Rob Weir

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
 wrote:
> On 5/5/12 4:03 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>> Am 05/05/2012 12:08 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 4, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>
 Am 05/04/2012 06:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have tested http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**
>>
>> index_new_dl.htmlon
>> MacOS 10.7.3 with Firefox 12.0 and Safari 5.1.5
>>
>> In both cases the click on the download butotn give me the correct
>> download, perfect ;-)
>>
>
> YAY!
>
>
>>
>>
>> Some questions as release manager:
>>
>> - the link "Searching for another version? Get all platforms,
>> languages,
>> language packs" guide me on an old page. Do we have the new page
>> with the
>> reduced number of released languages already in place?
>>
>
> yes, we do...it is not linked in and will need to retaing its
> current name
> but you can see the new version at:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html


 I've created yesterday evening a first draft. So, please don't see it
 as written in stone. And some links are not yet working.
>>>
>>>

>> Does "source archives" on this page provide links to our source
>> release?
>>
>
> see above page...


 Yes, there is a little section to provide links to the source files
 (should be from Apache only).
>>>
>>>
>>> This is what should be from the Apache Mirrors and not /dist/. You can
>>> use the cgi url that Joe has provided.
>>>
>>> (This is item no 10.)
>>>
>>> Let me know if you would like me to do these changes on the new other
>>> page.
>>
>>
>> I've tried to use the aoo-closer.cgi script in the URL. But it doesn't
>> work yet. Do you see anything incorrect in the URL?
>
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.zip[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.bz2[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]
>
>
>>
>> - the link "Release Notes"
>> Do we have it in place as html file that fits in here? I know we
>> have it
>> in the wiki and there as html as well. But is the plan here?
>>
>
> I just sent out a note about this. We have one in development but
> it's not
> where it should be.
>
>
>> - the "MD5 checksums"
>> I have read that we will probably change it to "Signatures and
>> Hashes". Do
>> we have the page/script behind it?
>>
>> Or should we simply provide 4 links ASC, MD5, SHA1, SHA512 with a
>> simple
>> script appending the correct extension. Everything else should be
>> in place
>> already.
>>
>
> This is a BIG unanswered question at the moment-- please see the
>
> "Distributing AOO 3.4: The 22 things we need to do before we announce"
>
> thread...Rob's last comments...


 I can create also a webpage with links to all checksums. Shouldn't be
 a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Link to the signatures on /dist/. These are the trusted source. The
>>> page should explain how to verify the sigs. There are many examples.
>>
>>
>> The checksums file is ready:
>>
>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
>>
>> Just the part "How to use checksums?" needs to be filled with text. I'll
>> do this tomorrow.
>
>
> you missed the *.asc signature files that are even more important to check
> the files.
>
> As I mentioned in another email, we could change the link
>
> "MD5 checksum" with 4 links ASC MD5 SHA1 SHA512
>
> The download button has all information in place to create the package name
> and Url part.
>
> We have to use simply
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/ +  +
>  + [.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]
>

I don't think that will work.  That URL would point to hash files on a
mirror.  We need to point to the copy under
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/

Why?  Because one purpose of the hashes is to protect against a
compromised mirror.  If a hacker got onto a mirror they could easily
change an install file and change the hash files at the same time.  So
we always want to point to the hashes on a trusted server, i.e.,
www.apache.org.


> to guide everything on the Apache mirrors
>
>
> Juergen
>
>
>>
>> Sorry if my questions are already answered somewhere, it's easy to
>> miss
>> some mails at the moment.
>>
>
> No problem...there's a LOT going on...


 To be honest, I think I've lost a litle bit the plot. I don't know
 exactly wh

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

Am 05/05/2012 12:24 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/5/12 4:03 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/05/2012 12:08 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:

On May 4, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/04/2012 06:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:

Hi,

I have tested http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**
index_new_dl.htmlon

MacOS 10.7.3 with Firefox 12.0 and Safari 5.1.5

In both cases the click on the download butotn give me the correct
download, perfect ;-)

YAY!

Some questions as release manager:

- the link "Searching for another version? Get all platforms,
languages,
language packs" guide me on an old page. Do we have the new page
with the
reduced number of released languages already in place?

yes, we do...it is not linked in and will need to retaing its
current name
but you can see the new version at:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html

I've created yesterday evening a first draft. So, please don't see it
as written in stone. And some links are not yet working.

Does "source archives" on this page provide links to our source
release?

see above page...

Yes, there is a little section to provide links to the source files
(should be from Apache only).

This is what should be from the Apache Mirrors and not /dist/. You can
use the cgi url that Joe has provided.

(This is item no 10.)

Let me know if you would like me to do these changes on the new other
page.

I've tried to use the aoo-closer.cgi script in the URL. But it doesn't
work yet. Do you see anything incorrect in the URL?

http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.zip[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]

http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]

http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.bz2[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]

Ah, it's "3.4.0" instead of "3.4". Thanks Juergen.

I don't get a download file but a webpage with a choice of many links.
When clicking on one I get the download. I think this is intended, right?

- the link "Release Notes"
Do we have it in place as html file that fits in here? I know we
have it
in the wiki and there as html as well. But is the plan here?

I just sent out a note about this. We have one in development but
it's not
where it should be.

- the "MD5 checksums"
I have read that we will probably change it to "Signatures and
Hashes". Do
we have the page/script behind it?

Or should we simply provide 4 links ASC, MD5, SHA1, SHA512 with a
simple
script appending the correct extension. Everything else should be
in place
already.

This is a BIG unanswered question at the moment-- please see the

"Distributing AOO 3.4: The 22 things we need to do before we announce"

thread...Rob's last comments...

I can create also a webpage with links to all checksums. Shouldn't be
a problem.

Link to the signatures on /dist/. These are the trusted source. The
page should explain how to verify the sigs. There are many examples.

The checksums file is ready:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Just the part "How to use checksums?" needs to be filled with text. I'll
do this tomorrow.

you missed the *.asc signature files that are even more important to
check the files.

OK, I've added also links to the ASC files.

As I mentioned in another email, we could change the link

"MD5 checksum" with 4 links ASC MD5 SHA1 SHA512

The download button has all information in place to create the package
name and Url part.

We have to use simply
http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/ + +
+ [.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]

to guide everything on the Apache mirrors

I understood. You want some links directly in the green box. OK, no
problem. Let's see how fast this could be implemented.

However, the checksum files have to come directly from the /dist
directory and not via aoo-closer.cgi from mirrors.

Thanks for your help.

Marcus

Sorry if my questions are already answered somewhere, it's easy to
miss
some mails at the moment.

No problem...there's a LOT going on...

To be honest, I think I've lost a litle bit the plot. I don't know
exactly which webpages we want, which links on them, to which
mirrors. And what are the exceptions. ;-(

Sorry.

So, I've updated our Wikipage (see the bottom) to get the overview
back. Even if this is not relevant for a longer time, it should be
helpful for the next weeks:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Distribution+Tasks

To the best of my knowledge, so please make changes if something is
wrong.

I changed the source over to the Apache Mirrors.

I think that the SDKs should be on the Apache mirrors, but then I can
also see good reasons to leave it alone.

I have it n

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

2012-05-05 Thread Claudio Filho

2012/5/5 Marcus (OOo) :
> The platform seems not recognized. Please post what you get from this
> webpage:

My results.

Claudio


- Chromium 18.0.1025.168~r134367-1 -
navigator.platform: Linux i686
navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64)
AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168
Safari/535.19
navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
safari/535.19
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Linux
getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform  Linux i686
navigator.platform.toLowerCase()linux i686
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.19
(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.168 Safari/535.19
navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64)
applewebkit/535.19 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/18.0.1025.168
safari/535.19
navigator.language  pt-BR
navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes

- Iceweasel (FFox) 10.0.4esr-2 --
navigator.platform: Linux x86_64
navigator.UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.UserAgent lower case: mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Linux x86-64
getLanguage(): Portuguese (Brazilian)


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform  Linux x86_64
navigator.platform.toLowerCase()linux x86_64
navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.4)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.4 Iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()   mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64;
rv:10.0.4) gecko/20100101 firefox/10.0.4 iceweasel/10.0.4
navigator.language  pt-BR
navigator.userLanguage  undefined
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction