Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Am 08/13/2016 10:39 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 08/13/2016 09:46 AM, Marcus wrote: Am 08/13/2016 06:24 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 08/13/2016 07:00 AM, Marcus wrote: Here are my tests: Linux 32-bit: - ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed - MD5, SHA1 are OK [1] - ZIP ASC is OK (signature

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 08/13/2016 09:46 AM, Marcus wrote: > Am 08/13/2016 06:24 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: >> >> On 08/13/2016 07:00 AM, Marcus wrote: >>> Here are my tests: >>> >>> Linux 32-bit: >>> >>> - ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed >>> - MD5, SHA1 are OK [1] >>> - ZIP ASC is OK (signature from Kay Schenk)

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Am 08/13/2016 06:24 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 08/13/2016 07:00 AM, Marcus wrote: Here are my tests: Linux 32-bit: - ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed - MD5, SHA1 are OK [1] - ZIP ASC is OK (signature from Kay Schenk) - Library ASC is OK (signature from Ariel Constenla-Haile) Linux

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 08/13/2016 07:00 AM, Marcus wrote: > Here are my tests: > > Linux 32-bit: > > - ZIP file is OK and can be uncompressed > - MD5, SHA1 are OK [1] > - ZIP ASC is OK (signature from Kay Schenk) > - Library ASC is OK (signature from Ariel Constenla-Haile) > > Linux 64-bit: > > - ZIP file is OK

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 12 Aug, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Don Lewis [mailto:truck...@apache.org] >> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 14:41 >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; ksch...@apache.org >> Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Bina

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Am 08/12/2016 10:01 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan: On 8/12/2016 12:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: ... [Anecdotal Side Note: I just discovered that the MD5 hash for the 4.1.2 Windows .exe fails to check on my Windows system because of a defect in the .md5 file. For reasons unknown, the md5sum

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 8/12/2016 12:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: ... [Anecdotal Side Note: I just discovered that the MD5 hash for the 4.1.2 Windows .exe fails to check on my Windows system because of a defect in the .md5 file. For reasons unknown, the md5sum tool that I have requires exactly two spaces

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Am 08/11/2016 09:50 PM, schrieb Kay sch...@apache.org: On 08/09/2016 02:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: [top posting] I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32, Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the actual HOTFIX page, we need to have just a "general"

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 11 Aug, Kay sch...@apache.org wrote: > > > On 08/11/2016 12:50 PM, Kay sch...@apache.org wrote: >> >> >> On 08/09/2016 02:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >>> [top posting] >>> I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32, >>> Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Kay Schenk wrote: My openssl version on does NOT supply digest sha256. Is it OK to use sha1? MD5 already computed for each of these. Guidelines recommend SHA256. But it should not be difficult for you to get a sha256sum binary or a generic shasum binary to run as "shasum -a256 FILENAME".

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 08/11/2016 12:50 PM, Kay sch...@apache.org wrote: > > > On 08/09/2016 02:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> [top posting] >> I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32, >> Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the actual >> HOTFIX page, we need to have

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 08/09/2016 02:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > [top posting] > I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32, > Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the actual > HOTFIX page, we need to have just a "general" instruction for ALL zips > that simply says --

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Am 08/10/2016 05:03 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 15:26 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 08/10/2016 03:09 AM, Jan Høydahl wrote: 9. aug. 2016 kl. 13.23 skrev Carl Marcum : ... Could we use a cross-platform installer like izpack [1]? I started trying it out last weekend and it looks like it could do the job of running a rename script and copying in the

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

> 9. aug. 2016 kl. 13.23 skrev Carl Marcum : > ... > Could we use a cross-platform installer like izpack [1]? > > I started trying it out last weekend and it looks like it could do the job of > running a rename script and copying in the library. I previously used izPack for

RE: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

> -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 15:26 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] > Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows) > > Am 08/0

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

[top posting] I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32, Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the actual HOTFIX page, we need to have just a "general" instruction for ALL zips that simply says -- "Unzip this package to some folder of your choosing and

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On 08/05/2016 12:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1 [TESTING]. -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]

RE: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

> -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 10:47 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] > Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows) > > Am 08/0

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

ch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows) On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1 [TESTING]. -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:ma

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Am 08/05/2016 06:28 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1 [TESTING]. -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [TESTING]

RE: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

> -Original Message- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 09:36 > To: OOo Apache <dev@openoffice.apache.org>; Dennis Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [

[PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1 [TESTING]. > -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows > >

Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1 > [TESTING]. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > > Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52 > > To: