date:20130807


Hi,

On 07.08.2013 08:59, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi Oliver,

You have edited the old OOo3 version. There is the new version on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step



I have edited the AOO Windows build requirement wiki page [1] and the 
AOO Windows step-by-step guide [2] which are both referenced by our new 
AOO Building Guide [3].


I did not touch the legacy one [4] which is the one from OOo 3.x with 
the one or the other edit for AOO. I will mark it as 'historical' and 
give a link to the new building guide.


I would like to clean up these wiki pages - more or less removing the 
legacy ones -, but I am currently not sure, if we would lose the one or 
the other important information, esp. for the Linux and the MacOS platform.


[1] 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_Windows 

[2] 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step

[3] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
[4] 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows



Best regards, Oliver.



Kind regards
Regina



Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:

Hi,

On 01.08.2013 15:15, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

Our current documentation about building AOO on Windows [1] (legacy one
[2]) references JDK 1.6 and Visual Studio 2008 Express as needed
software tools in order to build AOO on Windows. You might know that
these are no longer officially available for Windows.
Thus, I decided to work on a Windows build environment _without_ Visual
Studio 2008 and _with_ JDK 1.7. I managed to build current trunk on a
Windows 7 64bit HomePremium system using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) and without an
installed Visual Studio instance.
The problems which I need to solve on my way to the installation set
were:
(1) New version 2.7.1-1 of cygwin tool 'patch'.
Version 2.7.1-1 now takes line endings in the patch file and in the file
to be patch serious. Thus, the application of a patch fails when the
line endings are different.
Solution is to tweak the calling of the cygwin tool 'patch'.
(2) Building module accessibility.
In accessibility/bridge/source/java/ 'javah' is used to create a C
header file from a Java class. This does not work with JDK 1.7 as the
classpath does not contain the needed references to our UNO-API Java
classes.
Solution is to adjust the classpath for this 'javah' call.

There are issues 121690 [3] and 121754 [4] regarding building with Java
7 (JDK 1.7) and HSQLDB. I think these issues are the duplicates of each
other [please, can one of the people involved in these issues - e.g.
Fred, Ariel or Andrea confirm this? Thx in advance]. As far as I
understood these issues are solved. Please correct me, if I am wrong.
My build was not hit by any build problem regarding modules hsqldb and
connectivity.

The installation of my build successfully passes the so-called smoketest
- open document /main/smoketestdoc/[platform]/bin/smoketestdoc.sxw and
hit start button.

On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does not
recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu - Tools -
Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our Windows
users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due to
its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?


I will soon update our documentation [1] in order to enable newcomers to
build AOO under Windows.
I will also update the reference to the Windows SDK, because for
building without stlport on Windows the SP1 of the corresponding Windows
SDK is needed - see issue 122500 [5].



I have already updated our documentation regarding building AOO under
Windows - just forgot to mentioned it here.

Feedback regarding the documentation and its application in practice is
much appreciated - Thx in advance.


Best regards, Oliver.


[1]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_Windows



[2]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows



[3] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121690
[4] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754
[5] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122500


Best regards, Oliver.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows


Hi,

I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and Java 
6 for AOO installation on Windows.

Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.

On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized 
that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6) 
for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO 
installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does 
not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6 
for Windows.


Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on the 
AOO build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:



 From Oliver:
On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does not
recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu - Tools -
Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our Windows
users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due to
its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?


From Andrea:
As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can now
build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6 or 7
(regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this would
require discussion, especially on less common platforms.



From Oliver:
I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security risks of
Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In contrast
it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.

Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.


FromJürgen:
we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to support
it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java result
in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
important in the future and we should focus on the future.



My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows are:
- JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
- JRE 6 is no longer officially available
- JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on 
Widnows are reporting to update to JRE 7

- Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and JRE 6

I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future releases 
for Windows.


Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.


Best regards, Oliver.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: ERROR when build AOO

2013-08-07 Thread Edward Kuang

I had the same exact problem. I'm running ubuntu 64bit 12.04 not on a
virtual machine. This is a completely fresh install of ubuntu. The steps
I've done to try and build are

cd to aoo-trunk/main
$ autconf
$ ./configure --with-dmake-url=
http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2--with-epm-url=
http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7-1/epm_3.7.orig.tar.gz --disable-odk
--disable-binfilter
$ ./bootstrap
$ source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
$ cd instsetoo_native/
$ build --all

I get the same exact error that says epm not found IF I used the epm-url
above. But I used --with-epm-url=
http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz from this page
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO during a
second run through. It's been building for a while now and looks like it's
working at least.



On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > My name is Yohey, and I come from Taiwan.I am a "freshman" in AOO.
> > I use Ubuntu Linux as my environment, which version is 12.04. I follow
> > the following web to build AOO:
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
> >
> > I followed the two steps under SVN and then jumped to "Install
> > requirements" to
> > do the steps under it. But when I got to the step "Build", I had some
> > error.
> > Here is my error log:
> >
> > yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$
> build
> > --all
> > ...
> > ...
> > ...(Building log)
> > ...
> >
> > =
> > Building module epm
> > =
> >
> > Entering /home/yohey/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/epm
> >
> > dmake:  Error: -- `./
> > unxlngx6.pro/misc/3ade8cfe7e59ca8e65052644fed9fca4-epm-3.7.unpack' not
> > found, and can't be made
> >
> > 1 module(s):
> > epm
> > need(s) to be rebuilt
> >
> > Reason(s):
> >
> > ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
> > /home/yohey/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/epm
> >
> > When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by
> > running:
> >
> > build --all:epm
> >
> > yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$
> >
> > -end--
> >
> > I have tried it for a long time but I can't fix it up to now.
> >
> > Thanks you for reading my question.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Yohey.
> >
>
> Hi Yohey --
>
> OK, I am looking at the build instruction page you used. If you are using
> the Windows 7 instructions, the epm-url in the configure section was wrong
> and needs to be the same url as for the Ubuntu instructions. So, I just
> fixed this.
>
> It seems that epm did not build and this is needed to do the actual build.
>
> So, a few things that might help troubleshoot this problem:
>
> -- if you could post more information here about  your setup (OS, etc.)
> and the configuration options you used, that would help a lot
>
> -- you may want to take a look at the general AOO Build page if you haven't
> already:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
>
> In any case, we are here to help and welcome your development efforts. And,
> of course, we very much welcome any comments you may have on the Building
> Guides themselves.
>
>
> --
>
> -
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
>  -- Jon Bon Jovi
>

Re: pootle (translate-vm2.a.o down with mysql problems.

On 6 August 2013 21:46, janI  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> pootle experienced a mysql error, about an hour ago.
>
> I am looking at the problem.
>

Pootle server (translate-vm2.a.o) is up again, but will be slow  today.

I will be running refresh_stat (optimize db tables) today, and sync_stores
(update PO files) today, that will put some load on the server, but after
its done the server should be faster.

and we should have 4.01 (first step is a copy of 4.0)

rgds
jan I.

>
> rgds
> jan I.
>

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

2013-08-07 Thread Regina Henschel


Hi Oliver,

Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:

Hi,

On 07.08.2013 08:59, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi Oliver,

You have edited the old OOo3 version. There is the new version on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step




I have edited the AOO Windows build requirement wiki page [1] and the
AOO Windows step-by-step guide [2] which are both referenced by our new
AOO Building Guide [3].


OK, I have overseen, that you edit [2] too. It is very confusing to have 
both. I would like to see only one page per OS, containing OS specific 
informations and details.




I did not touch the legacy one [4] which is the one from OOo 3.x with
the one or the other edit for AOO. I will mark it as 'historical' and
give a link to the new building guide.


+1

or 'legacy' or 'archive'. And very large ;)



I would like to clean up these wiki pages - more or less removing the
legacy ones -, but I am currently not sure, if we would lose the one or
the other important information, esp. for the Linux and the MacOS platform.


Keep the old ones but add an header to which versions they belong. I 
remember, that someone on the list insists on building OOo3.4.1.






[1]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_Windows

[2]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step

[3] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
[4]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows



Best regards, Oliver.



I'm pleased, that you care about the instructions.

Kind regards
Regina


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: LibO code will be integrated to AOO?

2013-08-07 Thread RA Stehmann

On 06.08.2013 16:18, Rob Weir wrote:

> Or maybe the point you are missing is the distinction between a
> "quiet" approach and a "secret" approach.  These are not the same
> thing.  I'm not proposing secrecy.   But one can be transparent
> without drawing unwanted attention to a request.
> 

"Quiet" but not "secret" asking the developer privately and
contributing publicly might be a way to handle that problem for this moment.

But Jürgens idea getting a public statement of LibreOffice developers,
whether LibreOffice wants to cooperate or not, would cause public
transparency and perhaps could make things easier.

But it might be not the right time to action that idea now.

Regards
Michael

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

I'm deleting the quotes of the earlier discussion as it is not relevant to my 
point here.

I have no experience of building with Java and care little about the security 
holes, so I bow to the expertise of those who know better.  

If changes are being made to the OpenOffice/Java interaction, would it be 
possible that these be done in such a way that no matter whether installed on a 
32 or 64 bit windows, OpenOffice interfaced correctly with the installed Java, 
so doing away with the requirement that a 32 bit Java be installed.

This would prevent many queries on the Forum of why OO doesn't work with an 
installed Java.


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
 It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
 i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't
 need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate
 the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more relevant.

>>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
>>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
>>> well.
>>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
>>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
>>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
>>>
>>
>> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion was
>> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
>> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be rejected
>> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community member, to
>> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who is
>> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes sense
>> in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>  we have volunteers who are ready to
 work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers
 3.4.1. See 
 http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcvfor
  more.

>>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody
>>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
>>>
>>
>> One issue: 
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910
>>
>> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
>> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in attracting
>> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work whether
>> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice opportunity
>> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
>> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer is
>> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
>> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next month
>> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who actually
>> did this Pootle administration work.
> 
> 
> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it seems
> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on 4.0 ?

if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1

I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
scheme, why?

old aoo40

new a00401

This makes it not easier to get an overview


> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?

I would only add languages where we have an active translating
community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
templates

> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?

We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
will be merged on Pootle first.

And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete completely.

> 
> @jsc, I have trunk on my linux, so I suggest the following procedure
> (provided you agree):
> 
> 1) I convert all sdf files to po files (to be sure lets agree offlist on
> the actual cmds and parm to use)

I am fine with this, ping me for details

But we should merge the po files with the latest new template files for
AOO 4.0 to keep everything in sync.

I don't know why but I noticed sometimes some problems here and I have
to do it twice to get the same and correct word count.

By the way the Danish pootle-terminology.po file confused me every time
and needs special handling when merged etc.


> 2) upload the PO files to a temp dir on translate-vm2.a.o
> 3) sync db with po dir on translate-vm2.a.o
> 4) create project 4.01 with content of 4.0
> 5) compare if Pootle files contain newer info then sdf-PO files (this will
> be the difficult part)

mmh, I am not sure if I understand what you want to do here. Pootle is
our source and we convert old sdf files to po, merge with the latest
templates and update Pootle. Languages that are on the 4.0 project
already have to be not merged. Pootle is the source here.


> 6) create new languages
> 7) overwrite PO-dir with sdf-PO

use the updated and merged po files, merged against the latest template
files

> 8) sync PO dir with pootle (only for lang. with differences)
> 
> If we agre

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

On 8/7/13 10:01 AM, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07.08.2013 08:59, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>
>>> You have edited the old OOo3 version. There is the new version on
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have edited the AOO Windows build requirement wiki page [1] and the
>> AOO Windows step-by-step guide [2] which are both referenced by our new
>> AOO Building Guide [3].
> 
> OK, I have overseen, that you edit [2] too. It is very confusing to have
> both. I would like to see only one page per OS, containing OS specific
> informations and details.
> 
>>
>> I did not touch the legacy one [4] which is the one from OOo 3.x with
>> the one or the other edit for AOO. I will mark it as 'historical' and
>> give a link to the new building guide.
> 
> +1
> 
> or 'legacy' or 'archive'. And very large ;)
> 
>>
>> I would like to clean up these wiki pages - more or less removing the
>> legacy ones -, but I am currently not sure, if we would lose the one or
>> the other important information, esp. for the Linux and the MacOS
>> platform.
> 
> Keep the old ones but add an header to which versions they belong. I
> remember, that someone on the list insists on building OOo3.4.1.
> 

I would prefer to drop[ everything that is old and that is more
confusing than it helps

Juergen

> 
> 
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_Windows
>>
>>
>> [2]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
>>
>>
>> [3] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
>> [4]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>
> 
> I'm pleased, that you care about the instructions.
> 
> Kind regards
> Regina
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

On 7 August 2013 11:31, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/7/13 10:01 AM, Regina Henschel wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 07.08.2013 08:59, Regina Henschel wrote:
> >>> Hi Oliver,
> >>>
> >>> You have edited the old OOo3 version. There is the new version on
> >>>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have edited the AOO Windows build requirement wiki page [1] and the
> >> AOO Windows step-by-step guide [2] which are both referenced by our new
> >> AOO Building Guide [3].
> >
> > OK, I have overseen, that you edit [2] too. It is very confusing to have
> > both. I would like to see only one page per OS, containing OS specific
> > informations and details.
> >
> >>
> >> I did not touch the legacy one [4] which is the one from OOo 3.x with
> >> the one or the other edit for AOO. I will mark it as 'historical' and
> >> give a link to the new building guide.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > or 'legacy' or 'archive'. And very large ;)
> >
> >>
> >> I would like to clean up these wiki pages - more or less removing the
> >> legacy ones -, but I am currently not sure, if we would lose the one or
> >> the other important information, esp. for the Linux and the MacOS
> >> platform.
> >
> > Keep the old ones but add an header to which versions they belong. I
> > remember, that someone on the list insists on building OOo3.4.1.
> >
>
> I would prefer to drop[ everything that is old and that is more
> confusing than it helps
>
+1

rgds
jan I

>
> Juergen
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_Windows
> >>
> >>
> >> [2]
> >>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
> >>
> >>
> >> [3] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
> >> [4]
> >>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards, Oliver.
> >>
> >
> > I'm pleased, that you care about the instructions.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Regina
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> >
> >> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>>
>  It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
>  i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't
>  need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate
>  the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
> relevant.
> 
> >>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
> >>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
> >>> well.
> >>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
> >>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
> >>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion was
> >> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
> >> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be rejected
> >> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community member,
> to
> >> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who is
> >> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes
> sense
> >> in my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >>  we have volunteers who are ready to
>  work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers
>  3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
> 
> >>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody
> >>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
> >>>
> >>
> >> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
> >>
> >> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
> >> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
> attracting
> >> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work whether
> >> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
> opportunity
> >> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
> >> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer is
> >> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
> >> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next
> month
> >> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
> actually
> >> did this Pootle administration work.
> >
> >
> > I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it seems
> > we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
> > - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on 4.0 ?
>
> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>
> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
> scheme, why?
>
> old aoo40
>
> new a00401
>
> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>
I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.


>
>
> > - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>
> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
> templates
>

so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
factor to see that part of the language is already translated.

also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.


>
> > - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?
>
> We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
> to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
> will be merged on Pootle first.
>
we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted to
po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0
level.

>
> And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete completely.
>

yes, but thats just so much more reason to get all sdf files synchronized
now.


>
> >
> > @jsc, I have trunk on my linux, so I suggest the following procedure
> > (provided you agree):
> >
> > 1) I convert all sdf files to po files (to be sure lets agree offlist on
> > the actual cmds and parm to use)
>
> I am fine with this, ping me for details
>
will do.


>
> But we should merge the po files with the latest new template files for
> AOO 4.0 to keep everything in sync.
>
> I don't know why but I noticed sometimes some problems here and I have
> to do it twice to

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

2013-08-07 Thread Peter Eberlein


Hi Oliver,
Am 07.08.2013 09:44, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

Hi,

I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and Java
6 for AOO installation on Windows.
Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.

On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
for Windows.



If Java 6 has been dropped and Java 7 wasn't found on the system, 
wouldn't it be better to replace the general MsgBox "There was no Java 
environment found" by "Java 7 or higher wasn't found"?

Otherwise people who know that they have 1.6 installed may be confused.

Regards

Peter

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows


Hi,

On 07.08.2013 12:13, Peter Eberlein wrote:

Hi Oliver,
Am 07.08.2013 09:44, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

Hi,

I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and Java
6 for AOO installation on Windows.
Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.

On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
for Windows.



If Java 6 has been dropped and Java 7 wasn't found on the system,
wouldn't it be better to replace the general MsgBox "There was no Java
environment found" by "Java 7 or higher wasn't found"?
Otherwise people who know that they have 1.6 installed may be confused.



I agree.
In case that we decide to drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 on Windows, 
the corresponding message should be adjusted for Windows.


Best regards, Oliver.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FOSDEM 2014

2013-08-07 Thread RA Stehmann

Hello,

"Proposals for main track presentations should be submitted using Pentabarf:

https://penta.fosdem.org/submission/

Developer room proposals should be emailed to devro...@fosdem.org and be
as detailed as possible. In particular, coordinators should indicate
their affinity with the topic being proposed and provide a rough idea of
the content they plan to schedule.

Key dates:

15 September
deadline for developer room proposals
1 October
deadline for main track proposals
accepted developer rooms announced"

https://fosdem.org/2014/news/2013-08-06-call-for-participation/

Regards
Michael



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

On 7 August 2013 09:33, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> I'm deleting the quotes of the earlier discussion as it is not relevant to my 
> point here.
>
> I have no experience of building with Java and care little about the security 
> holes, so I bow to the expertise of those who know better.
>
> If changes are being made to the OpenOffice/Java interaction, would it be 
> possible that these be done in such a way that no matter whether installed on 
> a 32 or 64 bit windows, OpenOffice interfaced correctly with the installed 
> Java, so doing away with the requirement that a 32 bit Java be installed.

+1

AOO should work with what is installed, [though there is probably no
need to support Java 4 or earlier any more.]
Just because Java 5 or 6 is no longer current does not mean it is not
being used.
In particular, businesses tend to stay on older versions of Java (and
OS) until the cost of updating is less than the cost of not updating.

> This would prevent many queries on the Forum of why OO doesn't work with an 
> installed Java.
>
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell 
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

On 7 August 2013 12:51, sebb  wrote:

> On 7 August 2013 09:33, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> > I'm deleting the quotes of the earlier discussion as it is not relevant
> to my point here.
> >
> > I have no experience of building with Java and care little about the
> security holes, so I bow to the expertise of those who know better.
> >
> > If changes are being made to the OpenOffice/Java interaction, would it
> be possible that these be done in such a way that no matter whether
> installed on a 32 or 64 bit windows, OpenOffice interfaced correctly with
> the installed Java, so doing away with the requirement that a 32 bit Java
> be installed.
>
> +1
>
+1

>
> AOO should work with what is installed, [though there is probably no
> need to support Java 4 or earlier any more.]
> Just because Java 5 or 6 is no longer current does not mean it is not
> being used.
> In particular, businesses tend to stay on older versions of Java (and
> OS) until the cost of updating is less than the cost of not updating.
>

correct, but at the same time companies are typically security aware, and
java 6 (and below) have some serious know issues.

I would have thought that its possible to develop/built with java 7 and
still have java 5,6 as runtime environment, but looking at the code it does
not seem easy (we would have to get the java version, and use different API
calls).

rgds
jan I.


>
> > This would prevent many queries on the Forum of why OO doesn't work with
> an installed Java.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rory O'Farrell 
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio

On 7 August 2013 11:55, janI  wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 12:51, sebb  wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2013 09:33, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
>> > I'm deleting the quotes of the earlier discussion as it is not relevant
>> to my point here.
>> >
>> > I have no experience of building with Java and care little about the
>> security holes, so I bow to the expertise of those who know better.
>> >
>> > If changes are being made to the OpenOffice/Java interaction, would it
>> be possible that these be done in such a way that no matter whether
>> installed on a 32 or 64 bit windows, OpenOffice interfaced correctly with
>> the installed Java, so doing away with the requirement that a 32 bit Java
>> be installed.
>>
>> +1
>>
> +1
>
>>
>> AOO should work with what is installed, [though there is probably no
>> need to support Java 4 or earlier any more.]
>> Just because Java 5 or 6 is no longer current does not mean it is not
>> being used.
>> In particular, businesses tend to stay on older versions of Java (and
>> OS) until the cost of updating is less than the cost of not updating.
>>
>
> correct, but at the same time companies are typically security aware, and
> java 6 (and below) have some serious know issues.
>
> I would have thought that its possible to develop/built with java 7 and
> still have java 5,6 as runtime environment, but looking at the code it does
> not seem easy (we would have to get the java version, and use different API
> calls).

Java is upwards compatible (except parts of JDBC).
So it should be possible to restrict the code to the Java 5 API and it
would then work on Java 6 and 7 and 8 etc.

> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>>
>> > This would prevent many queries on the Forum of why OO doesn't work with
>> an installed Java.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rory O'Farrell 
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>>
 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't
>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate
>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
>> relevant.
>>
> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
> well.
> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
>

 We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion was
 to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
 (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be rejected
 again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community member,
>> to
 get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who is
 concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes
>> sense
 in my opinion.


  we have volunteers who are ready to
>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers
>> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
>> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
>>
> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody
> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
>

 One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>

 As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
 work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
>> attracting
 volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work whether
 done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
>> opportunity
 for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
 exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer is
 the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
 someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next
>> month
 is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
>> actually
 did this Pootle administration work.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it seems
>>> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
>>> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on 4.0 ?
>>
>> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>>
>> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
>> scheme, why?
>>
>> old aoo40
>>
>> new a00401
>>
>> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>>
> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>>
>> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
>> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
>> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
>> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
>> templates
>>
> 
> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
> factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
> 
> also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
> convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.

as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)

> 
> 
>>
>>> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?
>>
>> We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
>> to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
>> will be merged on Pootle first.
>>
> we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted to
> po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0
> level.

sure we have to do it ones but I talked more about the handling after
this initial step

> 
>>
>> And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete completely.
>>
> 
> yes, but thats just so much more reason to get all sdf files synchronized
> now.

I think I said this already. We have to convert them all in po, merge
against the late

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> >>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> >>>
>  Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >
> >> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
> >> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
> doesn't
> >> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
> re-evaluate
> >> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
> >> relevant.
> >>
> > in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
> > reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
> > well.
> > We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
> > issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
> > were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
> >
> 
>  We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion
> was
>  to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
>  (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
> rejected
>  again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
> member,
> >> to
>  get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who
> is
>  concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes
> >> sense
>  in my opinion.
> 
> 
>   we have volunteers who are ready to
> >> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
> offers
> >> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
> >> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
> >>
> > where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
> Nobody
> > should plan with other peoples time and willingness
> >
> 
>  One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
> 
>  As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
>  work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
> >> attracting
>  volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
> whether
>  done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
> >> opportunity
>  for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
>  exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer
> is
>  the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
>  someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next
> >> month
>  is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
> >> actually
>  did this Pootle administration work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
> seems
> >>> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
> >>> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
> 4.0 ?
> >>
> >> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
> >>
> >> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
> >> scheme, why?
> >>
> >> old aoo40
> >>
> >> new a00401
> >>
> >> This makes it not easier to get an overview
> >>
> > I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
> > easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
> >>
> >> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
> >> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
> >> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
> >> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
> >> templates
> >>
> >
> > so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
> > factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
> >
> > also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
> > convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.
>
> as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
> away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
> people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?
> >>
> >> We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
> >> to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
> >> will be merged on Pootle first.
> >>
> > we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted
> to
> > po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0
> > level.
>
> sure we have to do it ones but I talked more about

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
> for AOO installation on Windows.
> Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
>
> On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized that
> it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6) for
> Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO installation
> on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does not recognize an
> installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6 for
> Windows.
>

Another perspective to consider:   What leads to the most secure build
environment for our binaries?   I don't think we want to ever be
building binaries that millions of users download, that are built on a
machine with an unsupported JRE that is no longer receiving security
patches.  A build machine should be full patched against known
security issues.  And of course it should be used only for building,
not for daily email and web browsing.

So I think we should use JDK 1.7 for our builds.  If that breaks Java
5 and Java 6 compatibility for end users, then this is unfortunate,
but justifiable.

We'll face a similar issue of this sort in April 2014, when Windows XP
reaches End of Support by Microsoft.  Do we then continue to support
AOO on XP?  Do we test with it?  Perhaps.  But we certainly would not
build our binaries on XP, right?

Regards,

-Rob



> Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on the AOO
> build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:
> 
>
>  From Oliver:
> On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does not
> recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu - Tools
> -
> Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our Windows
> users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due to
> its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?


 From Andrea:
 As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can now
 build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6 or 7
 (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this would
 require discussion, especially on less common platforms.

>>>
>>> From Oliver:
>>> I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security risks of
>>> Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In contrast
>>> it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.
>>>
>>> Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
>>
>>
>> FromJürgen:
>> we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to support
>> it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java result
>> in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
>> important in the future and we should focus on the future.
>
> 
>
> My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows are:
> - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
> - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
> - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on Widnows
> are reporting to update to JRE 7
> - Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and JRE 6
>
> I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future releases for
> Windows.
>
> Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>>
 On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>
>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
 It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
 i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
>> doesn't
 need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
>> re-evaluate
 the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
 relevant.

>>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
>>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
>>> well.
>>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
>>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
>>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
>>>
>>
>> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion
>> was
>> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
>> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
>> rejected
>> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
>> member,
 to
>> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who
>> is
>> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes
 sense
>> in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>  we have volunteers who are ready to
 work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
>> offers
 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
 http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.

>>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
>> Nobody
>>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
>>>
>>
>> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
>>
>> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
>> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
 attracting
>> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
>> whether
>> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
 opportunity
>> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
>> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer
>> is
>> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
>> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next
 month
>> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
 actually
>> did this Pootle administration work.
>
>
> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
>> seems
> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
>> 4.0 ?

 if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1

 I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
 scheme, why?

 old aoo40

 new a00401

 This makes it not easier to get an overview

>>> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
>>> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
>>>
>>>


> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?

 I would only add languages where we have an active translating
 community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
 them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
 languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
 templates

>>>
>>> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
>>> factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
>>>
>>> also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
>>> convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.
>>
>> as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
>> away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
>> people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)
>>
>>>
>>>

> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?

 We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
 to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
 will be merged on Pootle first.

>>> we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted
>> to
>>> po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0
>>> level.

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:54:55 -0400
Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
> > for AOO installation on Windows.
> > Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
> >
> > On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized that
> > it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6) for
> > Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO installation
> > on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does not recognize an
> > installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> > Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6 for
> > Windows.
> >
> 
> Another perspective to consider:   What leads to the most secure build
> environment for our binaries?   I don't think we want to ever be
> building binaries that millions of users download, that are built on a
> machine with an unsupported JRE that is no longer receiving security
> patches.  A build machine should be full patched against known
> security issues.  And of course it should be used only for building,
> not for daily email and web browsing.
> 
> So I think we should use JDK 1.7 for our builds.  If that breaks Java
> 5 and Java 6 compatibility for end users, then this is unfortunate,
> but justifiable.
> 
> We'll face a similar issue of this sort in April 2014, when Windows XP
> reaches End of Support by Microsoft.  Do we then continue to support
> AOO on XP?  Do we test with it?  Perhaps.  But we certainly would not
> build our binaries on XP, right?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> 
> > Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on the AOO
> > build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:
> > 
> >
> >  From Oliver:
> > On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does not
> > recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu - Tools
> > -
> > Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our Windows
> > users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due to
> > its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?
> 
> 
>  From Andrea:
>  As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can now
>  build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6 or 7
>  (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this would
>  require discussion, especially on less common platforms.
> 
> >>>
> >>> From Oliver:
> >>> I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security risks of
> >>> Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In contrast
> >>> it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.
> >>>
> >>> Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
> >>
> >>
> >> FromJürgen:
> >> we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to support
> >> it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java result
> >> in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
> >> important in the future and we should focus on the future.
> >
> > 
> >
> > My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows are:
> > - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
> > - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
> > - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on Widnows
> > are reporting to update to JRE 7
> > - Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and JRE 6
> >
> > I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future releases for
> > Windows.
> >
> > Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.

I see no objection to future AOO releases requiring at least Java 1.7; ideally 
I would wish it continued to support XP (I suppose Win 2K is too much to hope 
for?).

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 7 August 2013 13:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> >>> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> >>>
>  On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> >
> >> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>>
>  It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget"
> trap,
>  i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
> >> doesn't
>  need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
> >> re-evaluate
>  the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
>  relevant.
> 
> >>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for
> practical
> >>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed
> as
> >>> well.
> >>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most
> serious
> >>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for
> 4.0
> >>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion
> >> was
> >> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
> >> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
> >> rejected
> >> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
> >> member,
>  to
> >> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody
> who
> >> is
> >> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review
> makes
>  sense
> >> in my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >>  we have volunteers who are ready to
>  work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
> >> offers
>  3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
>  http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
> 
> >>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
> >> Nobody
> >>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
> >>>
> >>
> >> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
>  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
> >>
> >> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot
> of
> >> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
>  attracting
> >> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
> >> whether
> >> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
>  opportunity
> >> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had
> great
> >> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language,
> Summer
> >> is
> >> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time,
> telling
> >> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release
> next
>  month
> >> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
>  actually
> >> did this Pootle administration work.
> >
> >
> > I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
> >> seems
> > we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
> > - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
> >> 4.0 ?
> 
>  if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
> 
>  I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
>  scheme, why?
> 
>  old aoo40
> 
>  new a00401
> 
>  This makes it not easier to get an overview
> 
> >>> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
> >>> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
> > - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
> 
>  I would only add languages where we have an active translating
>  community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and
> add
>  them on demand or we create a further project where we add all
> inactive
>  languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the
> latest
>  templates
> 
> >>>
> >>> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
> >>> factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
> >>>
> >>> also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
> >>> convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.
> >>
> >> as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
> >> away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
> >> people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> > - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?
> 
>  We should not merge sdf files back.

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
 On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>
>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
 On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
>>> doesn't
> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
>>> re-evaluate
> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
> relevant.
>
 in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
 reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
 well.
 We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
 issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
 were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.

>>>
>>> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion
>>> was
>>> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
>>> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
>>> rejected
>>> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
>>> member,
> to
>>> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who
>>> is
>>> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes
> sense
>>> in my opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>  we have volunteers who are ready to
> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
>>> offers
> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
>
 where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
>>> Nobody
 should plan with other peoples time and willingness

>>>
>>> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
>>>
>>> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
>>> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
> attracting
>>> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
>>> whether
>>> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
> opportunity
>>> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
>>> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer
>>> is
>>> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
>>> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next
> month
>>> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
> actually
>>> did this Pootle administration work.
>>
>>
>> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
>>> seems
>> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
>> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
>>> 4.0 ?
>
> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>
> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
> scheme, why?
>
> old aoo40
>
> new a00401
>
> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>
 I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
 easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.


>
>
>> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>
> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
> templates
>

 so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
 factor to see that part of the language is already translated.

 also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
 convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.
>>>
>>> as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
>>> away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
>>> people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)
>>>


>
>> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?
>
> We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
> to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
> will be merged on Pootle first.
>>>

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb  wrote:

> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> > On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> >> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
>  On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> > On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> >> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>
>  On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
> > It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget"
> trap,
> > i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
> >>> doesn't
> > need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
> >>> re-evaluate
> > the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
> > relevant.
> >
>  in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for
> practical
>  reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be
> fixed as
>  well.
>  We should really be careful here and should focus on the most
> serious
>  issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for
> 4.0
>  were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
> 
> >>>
> >>> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My
> suggestion
> >>> was
> >>> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
> >>> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
> >>> rejected
> >>> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
> >>> member,
> > to
> >>> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody
> who
> >>> is
> >>> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review
> makes
> > sense
> >>> in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  we have volunteers who are ready to
> > work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
> >>> offers
> > 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
> > http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
> >
>  where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
> >>> Nobody
>  should plan with other peoples time and willingness
> 
> >>>
> >>> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
> > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
> >>>
> >>> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a
> lot of
> >>> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
> > attracting
> >>> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
> >>> whether
> >>> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
> > opportunity
> >>> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had
> great
> >>> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language,
> Summer
> >>> is
> >>> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time,
> telling
> >>> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release
> next
> > month
> >>> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
> > actually
> >>> did this Pootle administration work.
> >>
> >>
> >> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
> >>> seems
> >> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
> >> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
> >>> 4.0 ?
> >
> > if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
> >
> > I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
> > scheme, why?
> >
> > old aoo40
> >
> > new a00401
> >
> > This makes it not easier to get an overview
> >
>  I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
>  easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
> >
> > I would only add languages where we have an active translating
> > community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and
> add
> > them on demand or we create a further project where we add all
> inactive
> > languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the
> latest
> > templates
> >
> 
>  so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a
> motivation
>  factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
> 
>  also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
>  convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.
> >>>
> >>> as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project
> but
> >>> away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
> >>> people who actually do the wo

Possible broken link: from other.html

2013-08-07 Thread Jennings, Rory

I am trying to download the AOO SDKs, but there is an error on this page
in your javascript when using IE8 (my company's policy, and I have no
admin rights to install an alternative). The error is in
download_other.js: Object doesn't support this property or method (line
96, character 2 which I believe is referring to PLATFORM.indexOf but I
don't have much experience with this sort of thing so I can't be sure).
I would appreciate it if this could be fixed ASAP as I need to evaluate
the use of these SDKs.

 

Regards,

Rory Jennings 

 

__

Rory Jennings - Delivery Graduate
t +44 (0)1452 635323

a BAE Systems Detica | 1120 The Square, Gloucester Business Park,
Brockworth, Gloucestershire, GL3 4AD
__
www.baesystemsdetica.com   

 


Please consider the environment before printing this email.
 
This message should be regarded as confidential. If you have received this 
email in error please notify the sender and destroy it immediately.
 
Statements of intent shall only become binding when confirmed in hard copy by 
an authorised signatory. 
 
The contents of this email may relate to dealings with other companies under 
the control of BAE Systems plc details of which can be found at 
http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/index.htm.
 
Detica Limited is a BAE Systems company trading as BAE Systems Detica.
Detica Limited is registered in England and Wales under No: 1337451.
Registered office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP, England.

Re: [Build Environment] Windows - build using Java 7 (JDK 1.7) without having Visual Studio


Hi,

sorry for top-posting:
But please use the new thread for the discussion of dropping Java 5 and 
Java 6 support for Windows.


Otherwise, it may happen that your arguement were lost for this discussion.

Thanks in advance,
Oliver.

On 07.08.2013 12:59, sebb wrote:

On 7 August 2013 11:55, janI  wrote:

On 7 August 2013 12:51, sebb  wrote:


On 7 August 2013 09:33, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:

I'm deleting the quotes of the earlier discussion as it is not relevant

to my point here.


I have no experience of building with Java and care little about the

security holes, so I bow to the expertise of those who know better.


If changes are being made to the OpenOffice/Java interaction, would it

be possible that these be done in such a way that no matter whether
installed on a 32 or 64 bit windows, OpenOffice interfaced correctly with
the installed Java, so doing away with the requirement that a 32 bit Java
be installed.

+1


+1



AOO should work with what is installed, [though there is probably no
need to support Java 4 or earlier any more.]
Just because Java 5 or 6 is no longer current does not mean it is not
being used.
In particular, businesses tend to stay on older versions of Java (and
OS) until the cost of updating is less than the cost of not updating.



correct, but at the same time companies are typically security aware, and
java 6 (and below) have some serious know issues.

I would have thought that its possible to develop/built with java 7 and
still have java 5,6 as runtime environment, but looking at the code it does
not seem easy (we would have to get the java version, and use different API
calls).


Java is upwards compatible (except parts of JDBC).
So it should be possible to restrict the code to the Java 5 API and it
would then work on Java 6 and 7 and 8 etc.


rgds
jan I.





This would prevent many queries on the Forum of why OO doesn't work with

an installed Java.



--
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On 7 August 2013 14:02, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:54:55 -0400
> Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and
> Java 6
> > > for AOO installation on Windows.
> > > Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
> > >
> > > On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I
> recognized that
> > > it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6) for
> > > Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
> installation
> > > on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does not
> recognize an
> > > installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> > > Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
> for
> > > Windows.
> > >
> >
> > Another perspective to consider:   What leads to the most secure build
> > environment for our binaries?   I don't think we want to ever be
> > building binaries that millions of users download, that are built on a
> > machine with an unsupported JRE that is no longer receiving security
> > patches.  A build machine should be full patched against known
> > security issues.  And of course it should be used only for building,
> > not for daily email and web browsing.
> >
> > So I think we should use JDK 1.7 for our builds.  If that breaks Java
> > 5 and Java 6 compatibility for end users, then this is unfortunate,
> > but justifiable.
> >
> > We'll face a similar issue of this sort in April 2014, when Windows XP
> > reaches End of Support by Microsoft.  Do we then continue to support
> > AOO on XP?  Do we test with it?  Perhaps.  But we certainly would not
> > build our binaries on XP, right?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >
> > > Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on
> the AOO
> > > build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:
> > > 
> > >
> > >  From Oliver:
> > > On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does
> not
> > > recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu -
> Tools
> > > -
> > > Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our
> Windows
> > > users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due
> to
> > > its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?
> > 
> > 
> >  From Andrea:
> >  As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can now
> >  build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6 or 7
> >  (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this
> would
> >  require discussion, especially on less common platforms.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> From Oliver:
> > >>> I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security
> risks of
> > >>> Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In
> contrast
> > >>> it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> FromJürgen:
> > >> we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to support
> > >> it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java result
> > >> in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
> > >> important in the future and we should focus on the future.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows
> are:
> > > - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
> > > - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
> > > - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on
> Widnows
> > > are reporting to update to JRE 7
> > > - Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and
> JRE 6
> > >
> > > I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future
> releases for
> > > Windows.
> > >
> > > Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.
>
> I see no objection to future AOO releases requiring at least Java 1.7;
> ideally I would wish it continued to support XP (I suppose Win 2K is too
> much to hope for?).
>

I am all in favour of remove java 1.5 and 1.6 from our build environment,
as they are a security risk. But we should exploit if its possible to use
java 1.7 for build and accept java 5,6,7 as runtime.

I have looked a bit in the code (I am no java guru), and I can see the APIs
differentiate. We could overcome that with a couple of if statements
(testing for version), question is do we also want to force our customers
to use java 1.7 ?

rgds
jan I.


>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell 
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Possible broken link: from other.html

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Jennings, Rory
 wrote:
> I am trying to download the AOO SDKs, but there is an error on this page
> in your javascript when using IE8 (my company's policy, and I have no
> admin rights to install an alternative). The error is in
> download_other.js: Object doesn't support this property or method (line
> 96, character 2 which I believe is referring to PLATFORM.indexOf but I
> don't have much experience with this sort of thing so I can't be sure).
> I would appreciate it if this could be fixed ASAP as I need to evaluate
> the use of these SDKs.
>

Hi Rory,

Thanks for the report regarding the website.  We'll take a look.  But
for immediate access you can download the SDK directly from this URL:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/SDK/

Also, if you have any questions about the SDK functionality itself,
note that we have a dedicated mailing list for that here:

http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#api-mailing-list-public

Regards,

-Rob


>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rory Jennings
>
>
>
> __
>
> Rory Jennings - Delivery Graduate
> t +44 (0)1452 635323
>
> a BAE Systems Detica | 1120 The Square, Gloucester Business Park,
> Brockworth, Gloucestershire, GL3 4AD
> __
> www.baesystemsdetica.com 
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> This message should be regarded as confidential. If you have received this 
> email in error please notify the sender and destroy it immediately.
>
> Statements of intent shall only become binding when confirmed in hard copy by 
> an authorised signatory.
>
> The contents of this email may relate to dealings with other companies under 
> the control of BAE Systems plc details of which can be found at 
> http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/index.htm.
>
> Detica Limited is a BAE Systems company trading as BAE Systems Detica.
> Detica Limited is registered in England and Wales under No: 1337451.
> Registered office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP, England.
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On 7 August 2013 13:47, janI  wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 14:02, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:54:55 -0400
>> Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
>> >  wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and
>> Java 6
>> > > for AOO installation on Windows.
>> > > Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
>> > >
>> > > On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I
>> recognized that
>> > > it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6) for
>> > > Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
>> installation
>> > > on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does not
>> recognize an
>> > > installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
>> > > Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
>> for
>> > > Windows.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Another perspective to consider:   What leads to the most secure build
>> > environment for our binaries?   I don't think we want to ever be
>> > building binaries that millions of users download, that are built on a
>> > machine with an unsupported JRE that is no longer receiving security
>> > patches.  A build machine should be full patched against known
>> > security issues.  And of course it should be used only for building,
>> > not for daily email and web browsing.
>> >
>> > So I think we should use JDK 1.7 for our builds.  If that breaks Java
>> > 5 and Java 6 compatibility for end users, then this is unfortunate,
>> > but justifiable.
>> >
>> > We'll face a similar issue of this sort in April 2014, when Windows XP
>> > reaches End of Support by Microsoft.  Do we then continue to support
>> > AOO on XP?  Do we test with it?  Perhaps.  But we certainly would not
>> > build our binaries on XP, right?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > -Rob
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on
>> the AOO
>> > > build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > >  From Oliver:
>> > > On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does
>> not
>> > > recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu -
>> Tools
>> > > -
>> > > Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our
>> Windows
>> > > users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due
>> to
>> > > its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  From Andrea:
>> >  As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can now
>> >  build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6 or 7
>> >  (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this
>> would
>> >  require discussion, especially on less common platforms.
>> > 
>> > >>>
>> > >>> From Oliver:
>> > >>> I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security
>> risks of
>> > >>> Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In
>> contrast
>> > >>> it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> FromJürgen:
>> > >> we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to support
>> > >> it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java result
>> > >> in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
>> > >> important in the future and we should focus on the future.
>> > >
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > > My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows
>> are:
>> > > - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
>> > > - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
>> > > - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on
>> Widnows
>> > > are reporting to update to JRE 7
>> > > - Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and
>> JRE 6
>> > >
>> > > I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future
>> releases for
>> > > Windows.
>> > >
>> > > Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.
>>
>> I see no objection to future AOO releases requiring at least Java 1.7;
>> ideally I would wish it continued to support XP (I suppose Win 2K is too
>> much to hope for?).
>>
>
> I am all in favour of remove java 1.5 and 1.6 from our build environment,
> as they are a security risk. But we should exploit if its possible to use
> java 1.7 for build and accept java 5,6,7 as runtime.
>
> I have looked a bit in the code (I am no java guru), and I can see the APIs
> differentiate. We could overcome that with a couple of if statements
> (testing for version), question is do we also want to force our customers
> to use java 1.7 ?

Where is this code?
Not sure I'd class myself as a Java guru, but I have done quite a bit
of work on Java compatibilty issues, so I might be able to help.

> rgds
> jan I.

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 8/7/13 2:04 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>>
 On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>>
 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget"
>> trap,
>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
 doesn't
>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
 re-evaluate
>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
>> relevant.
>>
> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for
>> practical
> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed
>> as
> well.
> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most
>> serious
> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for
>> 4.0
> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
>

 We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion
 was
 to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
 (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
 rejected
 again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
 member,
>> to
 get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody
>> who
 is
 concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review
>> makes
>> sense
 in my opinion.


  we have volunteers who are ready to
>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
 offers
>> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
>> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
>>
> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
 Nobody
> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
>

 One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>

 As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot
>> of
 work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
>> attracting
 volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
 whether
 done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
>> opportunity
 for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had
>> great
 exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language,
>> Summer
 is
 the best period for people to contribute in their spare time,
>> telling
 someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release
>> next
>> month
 is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
>> actually
 did this Pootle administration work.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
 seems
>>> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
>>> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
 4.0 ?
>>
>> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>>
>> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
>> scheme, why?
>>
>> old aoo40
>>
>> new a00401
>>
>> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>>
> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>>
>> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
>> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and
>> add
>> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all
>> inactive
>> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the
>> latest
>> templates
>>
>
> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
> factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
>
> also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
> convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.

 as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
 away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
 people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)

>
>
>>
>>> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf

Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])

2013-08-07 Thread FR web forum

I pull up this issue.
The error occurs again since two weeks.

>For interested look at:

>INFRA-6097 which request mysql optimization and
>INFRA-6098 which request httpd/ats/php optimization

>They are assigned to me, but when I do it, I need somebody to help
>test...any volunteers ?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb  wrote:
> 
>> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
 On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
 On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti 
>> wrote:

> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget"
>> trap,
>>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
> doesn't
>>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
> re-evaluate
>>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
>>> relevant.
>>>
>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for
>> practical
>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be
>> fixed as
>> well.
>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most
>> serious
>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for
>> 4.0
>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
>>
>
> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My
>> suggestion
> was
> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
> rejected
> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
> member,
>>> to
> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody
>> who
> is
> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review
>> makes
>>> sense
> in my opinion.
>
>
>  we have volunteers who are ready to
>>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
> offers
>>> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
>>> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
>>>
>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
> Nobody
>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
>>
>
> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
>
> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a
>> lot of
> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
>>> attracting
> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
> whether
> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
>>> opportunity
> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had
>> great
> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language,
>> Summer
> is
> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time,
>> telling
> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release
>> next
>>> month
> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
>>> actually
> did this Pootle administration work.


 I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it
> seems
 we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
 - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on
> 4.0 ?
>>>
>>> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>>>
>>> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
>>> scheme, why?
>>>
>>> old aoo40
>>>
>>> new a00401
>>>
>>> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>>>
>> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
>> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>>>
>>> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
>>> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and
>> add
>>> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all
>> inactive
>>> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the
>> latest
>>> templates
>>>
>>
>> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a
>> motivation
>> factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
>>
>> also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
>> convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.
>
> as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project
>> but
> away from the active ones. Simply reduced work an

Bug

2013-08-07 Thread Aldo


Good day

In Calc spreadsheet, on the Data menu with the standard filter the 
calculations give wrong results


Sincerely,

Aldo

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])

2013-08-07 Thread Ricardo Berlasso

2013/8/7 FR web forum 

> I pull up this issue.
> The error occurs again since two weeks.
>
>
Today, forums alternate between error 1040 and being slower than a snail.
It is not possible to access them right now.

Regards
Ricardo



> >For interested look at:
>
> >INFRA-6097 which request mysql optimization and
> >INFRA-6098 which request httpd/ats/php optimization
>
> >They are assigned to me, but when I do it, I need somebody to help
> >test...any volunteers ?
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Bug

2013-08-07 Thread FR web forum

Good day too,

Maybe you must provide a sample file to show the problem?

- Mail original -
De: "Aldo" 
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Août 2013 16:59:03
Objet: Bug

Good day

In Calc spreadsheet, on the Data menu with the standard filter the 
calculations give wrong results

Sincerely,

Aldo

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:47 AM, janI  wrote:

> On 7 August 2013 14:02, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:54:55 -0400
> > Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and
> > Java 6
> > > > for AOO installation on Windows.
> > > > Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
> > > >
> > > > On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I
> > recognized that
> > > > it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
> for
> > > > Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
> > installation
> > > > on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does not
> > recognize an
> > > > installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> > > > Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
> > for
> > > > Windows.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Another perspective to consider:   What leads to the most secure build
> > > environment for our binaries?   I don't think we want to ever be
> > > building binaries that millions of users download, that are built on a
> > > machine with an unsupported JRE that is no longer receiving security
> > > patches.  A build machine should be full patched against known
> > > security issues.  And of course it should be used only for building,
> > > not for daily email and web browsing.
> > >
> > > So I think we should use JDK 1.7 for our builds.  If that breaks Java
> > > 5 and Java 6 compatibility for end users, then this is unfortunate,
> > > but justifiable.
> > >
> > > We'll face a similar issue of this sort in April 2014, when Windows XP
> > > reaches End of Support by Microsoft.  Do we then continue to support
> > > AOO on XP?  Do we test with it?  Perhaps.  But we certainly would not
> > > build our binaries on XP, right?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on
> > the AOO
> > > > build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >  From Oliver:
> > > > On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does
> > not
> > > > recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu -
> > Tools
> > > > -
> > > > Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our
> > Windows
> > > > users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems
> due
> > to
> > > > its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From Andrea:
> > >  As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can
> now
> > >  build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6
> or 7
> > >  (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this
> > would
> > >  require discussion, especially on less common platforms.
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From Oliver:
> > > >>> I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security
> > risks of
> > > >>> Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In
> > contrast
> > > >>> it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> FromJürgen:
> > > >> we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to
> support
> > > >> it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java
> result
> > > >> in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
> > > >> important in the future and we should focus on the future.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows
> > are:
> > > > - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
> > > > - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
> > > > - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on
> > Widnows
> > > > are reporting to update to JRE 7
> > > > - Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and
> > JRE 6
> > > >
> > > > I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future
> > releases for
> > > > Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.
> >
> > I see no objection to future AOO releases requiring at least Java 1.7;
> > ideally I would wish it continued to support XP (I suppose Win 2K is too
> > much to hope for?).
> >
>
> I am all in favour of remove java 1.5 and 1.6 from our build environment,
> as they are a security risk. But we should exploit if its possible to use
> java 1.7 for build and accept java 5,6,7 as runtime.
>

I think we should drop java 1.6 and less for both build and runtime
requirements on ALL builds, not just Windows. I don't really know at this
point what the differences are on the buld vs runtime business, but I would
almost bet there will be some cases -- maybe many -- in which a b

Re: ERROR when build AOO

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Edward Kuang  wrote:

> I had the same exact problem. I'm running ubuntu 64bit 12.04 not on a
> virtual machine. This is a completely fresh install of ubuntu. The steps
> I've done to try and build are
>
> cd to aoo-trunk/main
> $ autconf
> $ ./configure --with-dmake-url=
>
> http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2--with-epm-url=
> http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7-1/epm_3.7.orig.tar.gz--disable-odk
> --disable-binfilter
> $ ./bootstrap
> $ source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
> $ cd instsetoo_native/
> $ build --all
>
> I get the same exact error that says epm not found IF I used the epm-url
> above. But I used --with-epm-url=
> http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz from this page
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO during a
> second run through. It's been building for a while now and looks like it's
> working at least.
>

Thanks, Edward...we will change all references to epm url to the working
url in the general Building Guide.


>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > My name is Yohey, and I come from Taiwan.I am a "freshman" in AOO.
> > > I use Ubuntu Linux as my environment, which version is 12.04. I follow
> > > the following web to build AOO:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
> > >
> > > I followed the two steps under SVN and then jumped to "Install
> > > requirements" to
> > > do the steps under it. But when I got to the step "Build", I had some
> > > error.
> > > Here is my error log:
> > >
> > > yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$
> > build
> > > --all
> > > ...
> > > ...
> > > ...(Building log)
> > > ...
> > >
> > > =
> > > Building module epm
> > > =
> > >
> > > Entering /home/yohey/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/epm
> > >
> > > dmake:  Error: -- `./
> > > unxlngx6.pro/misc/3ade8cfe7e59ca8e65052644fed9fca4-epm-3.7.unpack' not
> > > found, and can't be made
> > >
> > > 1 module(s):
> > > epm
> > > need(s) to be rebuilt
> > >
> > > Reason(s):
> > >
> > > ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
> > > /home/yohey/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/epm
> > >
> > > When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
> by
> > > running:
> > >
> > > build --all:epm
> > >
> > > yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$
> > >
> > > -end--
> > >
> > > I have tried it for a long time but I can't fix it up to now.
> > >
> > > Thanks you for reading my question.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >  Yohey.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Yohey --
> >
> > OK, I am looking at the build instruction page you used. If you are using
> > the Windows 7 instructions, the epm-url in the configure section was
> wrong
> > and needs to be the same url as for the Ubuntu instructions. So, I just
> > fixed this.
> >
> > It seems that epm did not build and this is needed to do the actual
> build.
> >
> > So, a few things that might help troubleshoot this problem:
> >
> > -- if you could post more information here about  your setup (OS, etc.)
> > and the configuration options you used, that would help a lot
> >
> > -- you may want to take a look at the general AOO Build page if you
> haven't
> > already:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
> >
> > In any case, we are here to help and welcome your development efforts.
> And,
> > of course, we very much welcome any comments you may have on the Building
> > Guides themselves.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> -
> > MzK
> >
> > Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
> >  -- Jon Bon Jovi
> >
>



-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: ERROR when build AOO

2013-08-07 Thread 張仁瀚

Thanks for your help! It seems that I have build it successfully by
following
the same steps you used. And thanks Kay for telling me to check this url
again so I could fix the epm error.
Although I can build AOO without errors, I can't install it successfully.
Nothing wrong happened when processing the step:
(cd to instsetoo_natives)
$ sudo dpkg -i unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/*.deb

But in this step, something heppened:
$ sudo dpkg -i
unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

(Reading database ... 214450 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
.../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install):
 trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
Errors were encountered while processing:

unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

$
-
It seems that I failed to install it. Also, installing terminaled even if I
went to
the route where "openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb" is and
then click it twice to open it.
How can I fix it?
Thanks again for your read and help.
Thanks!

Regards,
  Yohey

2013/8/7 Edward Kuang 

> I had the same exact problem. I'm running ubuntu 64bit 12.04 not on a
> virtual machine. This is a completely fresh install of ubuntu. The steps
> I've done to try and build are
>
> cd to aoo-trunk/main
> $ autconf
> $ ./configure --with-dmake-url=
>
> http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2--with-epm-url=
> http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7-1/epm_3.7.orig.tar.gz--disable-odk
> --disable-binfilter
> $ ./bootstrap
> $ source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
> $ cd instsetoo_native/
> $ build --all
>
> I get the same exact error that says epm not found IF I used the epm-url
> above. But I used --with-epm-url=
> http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz from this page
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO during a
> second run through. It's been building for a while now and looks like it's
> working at least.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > My name is Yohey, and I come from Taiwan.I am a "freshman" in AOO.
> > > I use Ubuntu Linux as my environment, which version is 12.04. I follow
> > > the following web to build AOO:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
> > >
> > > I followed the two steps under SVN and then jumped to "Install
> > > requirements" to
> > > do the steps under it. But when I got to the step "Build", I had some
> > > error.
> > > Here is my error log:
> > >
> > > yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$
> > build
> > > --all
> > > ...
> > > ...
> > > ...(Building log)
> > > ...
> > >
> > > =
> > > Building module epm
> > > =
> > >
> > > Entering /home/yohey/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/epm
> > >
> > > dmake:  Error: -- `./
> > > unxlngx6.pro/misc/3ade8cfe7e59ca8e65052644fed9fca4-epm-3.7.unpack' not
> > > found, and can't be made
> > >
> > > 1 module(s):
> > > epm
> > > need(s) to be rebuilt
> > >
> > > Reason(s):
> > >
> > > ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
> > > /home/yohey/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/epm
> > >
> > > When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
> by
> > > running:
> > >
> > > build --all:epm
> > >
> > > yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$
> > >
> > > -end--
> > >
> > > I have tried it for a long time but I can't fix it up to now.
> > >
> > > Thanks you for reading my question.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >  Yohey.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Yohey --
> >
> > OK, I am looking at the build instruction page you used. If you are using
> > the Windows 7 instructions, the epm-url in the configure section was
> wrong
> > and needs to be the same url as for the Ubuntu instructions. So, I just
> > fixed this.
> >
> > It seems that epm did not build and this is needed to do the actual
> build.
> >
> > So, a few things tha

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

2013-08-07 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.


May we frame the problem in more technical terms, just to know what is 
broken? For example, why is this affecting only Windows and why is Java 
6 not recognized in your build? Could the problem be in detection rather 
than in the actual compatibility?


Java issues were extensively discussed in earlier times, so here's a 
quick summary that also answers most of the questions in this thread:

- As of 4.0, OpenOffice can be built with Java 5, 6 or 7
- Whatever you use for building, the resulting binary has a "Java 
baseline" of 1.5 as per 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Policies/Java_Usage (means: runs with 
Java 5, 6 or 7)
- We built 4.0 with Java 6 (on Linux at least; not 100% sure about other 
platforms)


In general, I agree that we should build on the most secure platform 
available. But, based on the above, what is the relationship between 
"building on Java 7" and "running on Java 6"? To reuse Rob's Windows XP 
argument, sure we should build on a supported (by Microsoft) Windows 
version, but, if at all possible/reasonable, we shouldn't break 
compatibility with Windows XP.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

OpenOffice Download Page

2013-08-07 Thread Steele, Raymond

I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I am 
looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point me in the 
right direction. I am looking for the tarball.

http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source

Raymond

Re: OpenOffice Download Page

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Steele, Raymond  wrote:
> I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I am 
> looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point me in 
> the right direction. I am looking for the tarball.
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source
>

>From that URL, do you see the row labeled "Source tarballs"?  That's
what you want.  It is available in three different archive/compression
formats.

But remember, that is not the "latest" code.  That is the code from
4.0.  The most recent code is what you get out of the trunk in
Subversion.  Information on retrieving that is here:

http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html

Regardsm

-Rob


> Raymond
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: ERROR when build AOO

2013-08-07 Thread Edward Kuang

I can confirm the same error

$ sudo dpkg -i
unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

Selecting previously unselected package openoffice-debian-menus.
(Reading database ... 193152 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
.../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install):
 trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
Errors were encountered while processing:

unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:

> Thanks for your help! It seems that I have build it successfully by
> following
> the same steps you used. And thanks Kay for telling me to check this url
> again so I could fix the epm error.
> Although I can build AOO without errors, I can't install it successfully.
> Nothing wrong happened when processing the step:
> (cd to instsetoo_natives)
> $ sudo dpkg -i unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/*.deb
>
> But in this step, something heppened:
> $ sudo dpkg -i
>
> unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb
>
> (Reading database ... 214450 files and directories currently installed.)
> Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
> .../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
> dpkg: error processing
>
> unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install)
> :
>  trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
> libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
> /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
> gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
> /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
> gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
> Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
> Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
> Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
> Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
> Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
> Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
> Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>
>
> unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb
>
> $
> -
> It seems that I failed to install it. Also, installing terminaled even if I
> went to
> the route where "openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb" is and
> then click it twice to open it.
> How can I fix it?
> Thanks again for your read and help.
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>   Yohey
>
>
> 2013/8/7 Edward Kuang 
>
> > I had the same exact problem. I'm running ubuntu 64bit 12.04 not on a
> > virtual machine. This is a completely fresh install of ubuntu. The steps
> > I've done to try and build are
> >
> > cd to aoo-trunk/main
> > $ autconf
> > $ ./configure --with-dmake-url=
> >
> >
> http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2--with-epm-url=
> >
> http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7-1/epm_3.7.orig.tar.gz--disable-odk
> > --disable-binfilter
> > $ ./bootstrap
> > $ source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
> > $ cd instsetoo_native/
> > $ build --all
> >
> > I get the same exact error that says epm not found IF I used the epm-url
> > above. But I used --with-epm-url=
> > http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz from this
> page
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO during
> a
> > second run through. It's been building for a while now and looks like
> it's
> > working at least.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everyone,
> > > >
> > > > My name is Yohey, and I come from Taiwan.I am a "freshman" in AOO.
> > > > I use Ubuntu Linux as my environment, which version is 12.04. I
> follow
> > > > the following web to build AOO:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
> > > >
> > > > I followed the two steps under SVN and then jumped to "Install
> > > > requirements" to
> > > > do the steps under it. But when I got to the st

Re: Build breaks in Curl

2013-08-07 Thread Andrew Rist

I think the Linux 32 bots just need some cleanup - the win bots were 
having issues related to disk space, but that's cleaned up now.


looking to get all the bots green and add a few new ones (fbsd and 
CentOS soon)


A.



On 8/6/2013 10:36 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

at least my 'patch' work is done.
Linux 64bit and Windows 7 build bot ran successful.

Best regards, Oliver.

On 06.08.2013 11:25, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

On 06.08.2013 10:26, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi Oöiver,

Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:

Hi,

On 06.08.2013 09:39, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi Oliver,

Oliver-Rainer Wittmann schrieb:

Hi,

it seems that my changes for the 'patch' tool causes this build
breaker.
I will have a look.

Regina: Could please run 'patch -version' and tell me which 
version of

'patch' is active in your environment? Thx in advance.


It is
patch 2.6.1



Thanks.
I also reproduced the build breaker in my environment having patch 
2.6.1


my current solution to solve the build breaker:
- 'unix2dos main/curl/curl-7.19.7_win.patch'
- rebuild curl after removing main/curl/[platform]/



Yes, that works for me too. Building is now beyond curl.



Thx for the feedback.

I am now checking build on Linux (Ubuntu 11.10 32bit) and Windows (patch
version 2.7.1).

Best regards, Oliver.


On 06.08.2013 01:48, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi,

I try to build current trunk r1510523 and get the error:

=
Building module curl
=

Entering /cygdrive/c/AOO_2013_08_05/trunk/main/curl

patching file curl-7.19.7/configure
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
3 out of 3 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file
curl-7.19.7/configure.rej
patching file curl-7.19.7/lib/setup.h
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file
curl-7.19.7/lib/setup.h.rej
patching file curl-7.19.7/ltmain.sh
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
2 out of 2 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file
curl-7.19.7/ltmain.sh.rej
patching file curl-7.19.7/lib/ssh.c
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
2 out of 2 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file
curl-7.19.7/lib/ssh.c.rej
patching file curl-7.19.7/lib/Makefile.vc9
Hunk #1 FAILED at 46.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
curl-7.19.7/lib/Makefile.vc9.rej
dmake:  Error code 1, while making
'./wntmsci12/misc/build/so_patched_so_curl'

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

My configure is
./configure \
  --with-directx-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft DirectX
SDK
(June 2010)" \
  --with-cl-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Visual Studio
9.0/VC" \
  --disable-build-mozilla \
  --disable-activex \
  --with-mozilla-build="/cygdrive/c/mozillabuild" \
  --enable-dbgutil \
  --with-asm-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Visual 
Studio

9.0/VC/bin" \
  --with-jdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Java/jdk1.6.0_38" \
  --with-ant-home=/ant \
  --with-mspdb-path="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Visual
Studio
9.0/Common7/IDE" \
  --without-junit \

--with-dmake-url="http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2"; 







\
  --without-fonts \

--with-atl-include-dir="/cygdrive/c/WinDDK/7600.16385.1/inc/atl71" 
\

--with-atl-lib-dir="/cygdrive/c/WinDDK/7600.16385.1/lib/ATL/i386" \

--with-mfc-include-dir="/cygdrive/c/WinDDK/7600.16385.1/inc/mfc42" 
\

--with-mfc-lib-dir="/cygdrive/c/WinDDK/7600.16385.1/lib/Mfc/i386" \
  --with-lang="de en kid" \
  --enable-category-b \
  --with-vendor="Regina_Henschel" \
  --with-build-version="r1510523_debug_category_b"



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



--

Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
OracleCorporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847

Re: ERROR when build AOO

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:00:16 -0700
Edward Kuang  wrote:

> I can confirm the same error
> 
> $ sudo dpkg -i
> unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb
> 
> Selecting previously unselected package openoffice-debian-menus.
> (Reading database ... 193152 files and directories currently installed.)
> Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
> .../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
> dpkg: error processing
> unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install):
>  trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
> libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
> /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
> gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
> /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
> gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
> Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
> Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
> Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
> Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
> Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
> Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
> Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> 
> unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for your help! It seems that I have build it successfully by
> > following
> > the same steps you used. And thanks Kay for telling me to check this url
> > again so I could fix the epm error.
> > Although I can build AOO without errors, I can't install it successfully.
> > Nothing wrong happened when processing the step:
> > (cd to instsetoo_natives)
> > $ sudo dpkg -i unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/*.deb
> >
> > But in this step, something heppened:
> > $ sudo dpkg -i
> >
> > unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb
> >
> > (Reading database ... 214450 files and directories currently installed.)
> > Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
> > .../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
> > dpkg: error processing
> >
> > unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install)
> > :
> >  trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
> > libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
> > /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
> > gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
> > /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
> > gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
> > Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
> > Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
> > Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
> > Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
> > Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
> > Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
> > Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >
> >
> > unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb
> >
> > $
> > -
> > It seems that I failed to install it. Also, installing terminaled even if I
> > went to
> > the route where "openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb" is and
> > then click it twice to open it.
> > How can I fix it?
> > Thanks again for your read and help.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Yohey
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/7 Edward Kuang 
> >
> > > I had the same exact problem. I'm running ubuntu 64bit 12.04 not on a
> > > virtual machine. This is a completely fresh install of ubuntu. The steps
> > > I've done to try and build are
> > >
> > > cd to aoo-trunk/main
> > > $ autconf
> > > $ ./configure --with-dmake-url=
> > >
> > >
> > http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2--with-epm-url=
> > >
> > http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7-1/epm_3.7.orig.tar.gz--disable-odk
> > > --disable-binfilter
> > > $ ./bootstrap
> > > $ source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
> > > $ cd instsetoo_native/
> > > $ build --all
> > >
> > > I get the same exact error that says epm not found IF I used the epm-url
> > > above. But I used --with-epm-url=
> > > http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz from this
> > page
> > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO during
> > a
> > > second run through. It's been building for a while now and looks like
> > it's
> > > working at least.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM, 張仁瀚  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > My name is Yohey, and I come from Taiwan.I am a "freshman" in AOO.
> > > > > I use Ubuntu Linux as my environment, which version is 12.04. I
> > follow

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On 7 August 2013 18:55, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
>> Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
>> On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
>> that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
>> for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
>> installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
>> not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
>>
>
> May we frame the problem in more technical terms, just to know what is
> broken? For example, why is this affecting only Windows and why is Java 6
> not recognized in your build? Could the problem be in detection rather than
> in the actual compatibility?
>
> Java issues were extensively discussed in earlier times, so here's a quick
> summary that also answers most of the questions in this thread:
> - As of 4.0, OpenOffice can be built with Java 5, 6 or 7
> - Whatever you use for building, the resulting binary has a "Java
> baseline" of 1.5 as per http://wiki.openoffice.org/**
> wiki/Policies/Java_Usage(means:
>  runs with Java 5, 6 or 7)
> - We built 4.0 with Java 6 (on Linux at least; not 100% sure about other
> platforms)
>
> In general, I agree that we should build on the most secure platform
> available. But, based on the above, what is the relationship between
> "building on Java 7" and "running on Java 6"? To reuse Rob's Windows XP
> argument, sure we should build on a supported (by Microsoft) Windows
> version, but, if at all possible/reasonable, we shouldn't break
> compatibility with Windows XP.
>

I am sorry if this posting is obvious to everyone, but reading the remarks,
make me think there are some confusion about what we mean with using java
for development and runtime.

One of the strength of java is "program once, run everywhere" . This is
accomplished by by 2 magic trix (compared to eg. C++).
1) Java does not compile to machine code but to pcode (a virtual machine),
therefore you can build the program on linux, and run the build on window
(or even one of the big mainframes).
2) Java also does late binding (think of a very smart dll), so libraries
are not part of your build.

This means you can use a java development 1.7 on any platform, to make a
build that runs on any platform and (nearly) any java runtime version. As
an example I use areca backup, its a java program, the exact same jar files
run on vista,xp,win7,ubuntu and even android, areca is programm towards
java 1.4, and I have 1.6 and 1.7 installed depending on platform.

The problem is the classes and the API. If our code use just a single java
1.7 specific call, the runtime must be at least 1.7. This is however no
problem today, our code is build for the classes and api available in java
runtime 1.5, so it will run there.

Oracle have promised to keep the API and classes for 1.4 and forwards
stable, and available in new versions. They are pretty good at living up to
the promise

So in theory we can change build environment to java 1.7 and not tell user,
as long as we only use 1.5 API and classes. As part of a release cycle, we
should of course test once with runtime 1.5.

I wrote "in theory" because in the real world, we might want to (in future
releases) use the 1.7 api for e.g. performance reasons, when that time
comes we would have to make a wrapper class, just like we have in C++ to
cover differences Linux/windows.

Sorry again, if I misread the postings, but this is very much different
from the XP scenario.

rgds
jan I.

>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])

On 7 August 2013 17:28, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:

> 2013/8/7 FR web forum 
>
> > I pull up this issue.
> > The error occurs again since two weeks.
> >
> >
> Today, forums alternate between error 1040 and being slower than a snail.
> It is not possible to access them right now.
>
I think you have some fast snails in your area :-)

At least the vm itself seems relative ok now.

However, I can see that there has been mysql problems earlier, seems to be
the old problem, that httpd tries to grap more connections than available.

This time I could also see that the mysql buffer spaces had been pretty
full, without knowing the forum software, I would say that some of the
tables should be converted to innodb. We did that on mwiki, and that change
alone allowed mysql to handle a lot more parallel select statements (60-70%
of the total).

In general the configs are ok for normal daily traffic but cannot handle
peak situations.

Rgds
jan I.

>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
> > >For interested look at:
> >
> > >INFRA-6097 which request mysql optimization and
> > >INFRA-6098 which request httpd/ats/php optimization
> >
> > >They are assigned to me, but when I do it, I need somebody to help
> > >test...any volunteers ?
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: ERROR when build AOO

2013-08-07 Thread edward

Thanks. Removing libreoffice did the job.

On 08/07/2013 11:13 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:00:16 -0700
Edward Kuang wrote:

I can confirm the same error

$ sudo dpkg -i
unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

Selecting previously unselected package openoffice-debian-menus.
(Reading database ... 193152 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
.../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install):
trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
Errors were encountered while processing:

unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, 張仁瀚 wrote:

Thanks for your help! It seems that I have build it successfully by
following
the same steps you used. And thanks Kay for telling me to check this url
again so I could fix the epm error.
Although I can build AOO without errors, I can't install it successfully.
Nothing wrong happened when processing the step:
(cd to instsetoo_natives)
$ sudo dpkg -i unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/*.deb

But in this step, something heppened:
$ sudo dpkg -i

unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

(Reading database ... 214450 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking openoffice-debian-menus (from
.../openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing

unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb(--install)
:
trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/soffice', which is also in package
libreoffice-common 1:3.5.7-0ubuntu4
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully.
Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ...
Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for gnome-menus ...
Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ...
Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ...
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ...
Errors were encountered while processing:

unxlngx6.pro/Apache_OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration/openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb

$
-
It seems that I failed to install it. Also, installing terminaled even if I
went to
the route where "openoffice4.0-debian-menus_4.0-9702_all.deb" is and
then click it twice to open it.
How can I fix it?
Thanks again for your read and help.
Thanks!

Regards,
Yohey

2013/8/7 Edward Kuang

I had the same exact problem. I'm running ubuntu 64bit 12.04 not on a
virtual machine. This is a completely fresh install of ubuntu. The steps
I've done to try and build are

cd to aoo-trunk/main
$ autconf
$ ./configure --with-dmake-url=

http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2--with-epm-url=
http://epm.sourcearchive.com/downloads/3.7-1/epm_3.7.orig.tar.gz--disable-odk

--disable-binfilter
$ ./bootstrap
$ source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
$ cd instsetoo_native/
$ build --all

I get the same exact error that says epm not found IF I used the epm-url
above. But I used --with-epm-url=
http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz from this

page

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO during

second run through. It's been building for a while now and looks like

it's

working at least.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 AM, 張仁瀚 wrote:

Hello everyone,

My name is Yohey, and I come from Taiwan.I am a "freshman" in AOO.
I use Ubuntu Linux as my environment, which version is 12.04. I

the following web to build AOO:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step

I followed the two steps under SVN and then jumped to "Install
requirements" to
do the steps under it. But when I got to the step "Build", I had some
error.
Here is my error log:

yohey@yohey-VirtualBox:~/Openoffice/aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo_native$

build

--all
...
...
...(Buil

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

2013-08-07 Thread Steele, Raymond

Rob, 

Thanks for the response. I am looking for the 4.0 code. I clicked the link, but 
it is not going anywhere. Does it work for you?

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Steele, Raymond
Cc: us...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Steele, Raymond  wrote:
> I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I am 
> looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point me in 
> the right direction. I am looking for the tarball.
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source
>

From that URL, do you see the row labeled "Source tarballs"?  That's what you 
want.  It is available in three different archive/compression formats.

But remember, that is not the "latest" code.  That is the code from 4.0.  The 
most recent code is what you get out of the trunk in Subversion.  Information 
on retrieving that is here:

http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html

Regardsm

-Rob

> Raymond
>

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb  wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> >>> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>  On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> > On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> >> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>  On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget"
> >> trap,
> >>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
> > doesn't
> >>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
> > re-evaluate
> >>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
> >>> relevant.
> >>>
> >> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for
> >> practical
> >> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be
> >> fixed as
> >> well.
> >> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most
> >> serious
> >> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers
> for
> >> 4.0
> >> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
> >>
> >
> > We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My
> >> suggestion
> > was
> > to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED
> blockers
> > (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
> > rejected
> > again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
> > member,
> >>> to
> > get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody
> >> who
> > is
> > concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review
> >> makes
> >>> sense
> > in my opinion.
> >
> >
> >  we have volunteers who are ready to
> >>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
> > offers
> >>> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
> >>> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
> >>>
> >> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
> > Nobody
> >> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
> >>
> >
> > One issue:
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
> >
> > As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a
> >> lot of
> > work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
> >>> attracting
> > volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
> > whether
> > done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
> >>> opportunity
> > for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had
> >> great
> > exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language,
> >> Summer
> > is
> > the best period for people to contribute in their spare time,
> >> telling
> > someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release
> >> next
> >>> month
> > is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
> >>> actually
> > did this Pootle administration work.
> 
> 
>  I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails
> it
> > seems
>  we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
>  - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working
> on
> > 4.0 ?
> >>>
> >>> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
> >>>
> >>> I see you have created new project names and used again a new
> naming
> >>> scheme, why?
> >>>
> >>> old aoo40
> >>>
> >>> new a00401
> >>>
> >>> This makes it not easier to get an overview
> >>>
> >> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the
> db
> >> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
>  - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
> >>>
> >>> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
> >>> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and
> >> add
> >>> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all
> >> inactive
> >>> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the
> >> latest
> >>> templates
> >>>
> >>
> >> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a
> >> motivation
> >> factor to see that part of the

Review bug-fix for 122881


Hi at all

Bug: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122881

The bug says, that the application icon is not visible on Mac OS X 
10.5.8. I investegate in this bug, and found out, that the actual 
main.icns is not compatible with Mac OS X 10.5.8. 10.6 and heighter 
works find.


I created a new main.icns who is compatible. I also tested the Icon on 
10.7 but I have not tested on 10.6 and 10.8.


To test this you have simply to overwrite 
/Applications/OpenOffice.app/Contents/Resources/main.icns wich the one i 
provide in the bug.


If there are no objections, I will commit this to the branch AOO40. I'm 
not sure, if i should commit this in the main, because we plain to drop 
the support for 10.5.x


Greetings Raphael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Review bug-fix for 122881

2013-08-07 Thread Marcus (OOo)


Am 08/07/2013 08:52 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:

Hi at all

Bug: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122881

The bug says, that the application icon is not visible on Mac OS X
10.5.8. I investegate in this bug, and found out, that the actual
main.icns is not compatible with Mac OS X 10.5.8. 10.6 and heighter
works find.

I created a new main.icns who is compatible. I also tested the Icon on
10.7 but I have not tested on 10.6 and 10.8.

To test this you have simply to overwrite
/Applications/OpenOffice.app/Contents/Resources/main.icns wich the one i
provide in the bug.

If there are no objections, I will commit this to the branch AOO40. I'm
not sure, if i should commit this in the main, because we plain to drop
the support for 10.5.x


I would never commit any changes into a stable branch without 
confirmation. Furthermore, the issue is not flagged as approved 
showstopper nor has it a target version.


Of course, I'm not the release manager ;-) but I wouldn't do it.

My 2ct.

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:35:30 +0200
janI  wrote:

> On 7 August 2013 17:28, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
> 
> > 2013/8/7 FR web forum 
> >
> > > I pull up this issue.
> > > The error occurs again since two weeks.
> > >
> > >
> > Today, forums alternate between error 1040 and being slower than a snail.
> > It is not possible to access them right now.
> >
> I think you have some fast snails in your area :-)
> 
> At least the vm itself seems relative ok now.
> 
> However, I can see that there has been mysql problems earlier, seems to be
> the old problem, that httpd tries to grap more connections than available.
> 
> This time I could also see that the mysql buffer spaces had been pretty
> full, without knowing the forum software, I would say that some of the
> tables should be converted to innodb. We did that on mwiki, and that change
> alone allowed mysql to handle a lot more parallel select statements (60-70%
> of the total).
> 
> In general the configs are ok for normal daily traffic but cannot handle
> peak situations.
> 
> Rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
> >
> > Regards
> > Ricardo
> >
> >
> >
> > > >For interested look at:
> > >
> > > >INFRA-6097 which request mysql optimization and
> > > >INFRA-6098 which request httpd/ats/php optimization
> > >
> > > >They are assigned to me, but when I do it, I need somebody to help
> > > >test...any volunteers ?
> > >

Just before one outage of the forum today there were 150 users online, which is 
a long way short of the maximum logged of 294. An interesting thing I have 
noted is that it is often slow, leading to an error 10040 at about 0930 UTC+1; 
this happens quite regularly.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

2013-08-07 Thread Marcus (OOo)


Am 08/07/2013 08:43 PM, schrieb Steele, Raymond:

Rob,

Thanks for the response. I am looking for the 4.0 code. I clicked the link, but 
it is not going anywhere. Does it work for you?


Yes, for me all 3 links are working, also the links for the signature 
and hash files.


Do you get any error message or at least see any hint that could bring 
us forward?


As alternative, what is happening when you use the Apache server?

http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source/

Thanks

Marcus




-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Steele, Raymond
Cc: us...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Steele, Raymond  wrote:

I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I am 
looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point me in the 
right direction. I am looking for the tarball.

http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source



 From that URL, do you see the row labeled "Source tarballs"?  That's what you 
want.  It is available in three different archive/compression formats.

But remember, that is not the "latest" code.  That is the code from 4.0.  The 
most recent code is what you get out of the trunk in Subversion.  Information on 
retrieving that is here:

http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html

Regardsm

-Rob



Raymond


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 08/07/2013 08:43 PM, schrieb Steele, Raymond:
>
>> Rob,
>>
>> Thanks for the response. I am looking for the 4.0 code. I clicked the
>> link, but it is not going anywhere. Does it work for you?
>
>
> Yes, for me all 3 links are working, also the links for the signature and
> hash files.
>

Works fine for me as well, Firefox on Windows 7.

-Rob

> Do you get any error message or at least see any hint that could bring us
> forward?
>
> As alternative, what is happening when you use the Apache server?
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source/
>
> Thanks
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Steele, Raymond
>> Cc: us...@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Steele, Raymond
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I
>>> am looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point me
>>> in the right direction. I am looking for the tarball.
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source
>>>
>>
>>  From that URL, do you see the row labeled "Source tarballs"?  That's what
>> you want.  It is available in three different archive/compression formats.
>>
>> But remember, that is not the "latest" code.  That is the code from 4.0.
>> The most recent code is what you get out of the trunk in Subversion.
>> Information on retrieving that is here:
>>
>> http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html
>>
>> Regardsm
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> Raymond
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Review bug-fix for 122881


Am 07.08.13 21:03, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

Am 08/07/2013 08:52 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:

Hi at all

Bug: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122881

The bug says, that the application icon is not visible on Mac OS X
10.5.8. I investegate in this bug, and found out, that the actual
main.icns is not compatible with Mac OS X 10.5.8. 10.6 and heighter
works find.

I created a new main.icns who is compatible. I also tested the Icon on
10.7 but I have not tested on 10.6 and 10.8.

To test this you have simply to overwrite
/Applications/OpenOffice.app/Contents/Resources/main.icns wich the one i
provide in the bug.

If there are no objections, I will commit this to the branch AOO40. I'm
not sure, if i should commit this in the main, because we plain to drop
the support for 10.5.x


I would never commit any changes into a stable branch without 
confirmation. Furthermore, the issue is not flagged as approved 
showstopper nor has it a target version.


Of course, I'm not the release manager ;-) but I wouldn't do it.
That's the reason why I ask for reviewing ;-) And for 10.5.8 and 
probabily 10.4 this is a funny, but also nasty bug. You simply don't see 
the icon in the dock ;-) And we still support 10.4 and 10.5.


And by the way, the fix is trivial, and affects Mac OS X only

Greetings



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])


Am 07.08.13 21:04, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:35:30 +0200
janI  wrote:


On 7 August 2013 17:28, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:


2013/8/7 FR web forum 


I pull up this issue.
The error occurs again since two weeks.



Today, forums alternate between error 1040 and being slower than a snail.
It is not possible to access them right now.


I think you have some fast snails in your area :-)

At least the vm itself seems relative ok now.

However, I can see that there has been mysql problems earlier, seems to be
the old problem, that httpd tries to grap more connections than available.

This time I could also see that the mysql buffer spaces had been pretty
full, without knowing the forum software, I would say that some of the
tables should be converted to innodb. We did that on mwiki, and that change
alone allowed mysql to handle a lot more parallel select statements (60-70%
of the total).

In general the configs are ok for normal daily traffic but cannot handle
peak situations.

Rgds
jan I.



Regards
Ricardo




For interested look at:
INFRA-6097 which request mysql optimization and
INFRA-6098 which request httpd/ats/php optimization
They are assigned to me, but when I do it, I need somebody to help
test...any volunteers ?

Just before one outage of the forum today there were 150 users online, which is 
a long way short of the maximum logged of 294. An interesting thing I have 
noted is that it is often slow, leading to an error 10040 at about 0930 UTC+1; 
this happens quite regularly.

Maybe this is the backup. Bugzilla has the same behavure at the same 
time. Or ASF Server simply don't like morning ;-)


Greetings Raphael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:07:03 -0400
Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> > Am 08/07/2013 08:43 PM, schrieb Steele, Raymond:
> >
> >> Rob,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the response. I am looking for the 4.0 code. I clicked the
> >> link, but it is not going anywhere. Does it work for you?
> >
> >
> > Yes, for me all 3 links are working, also the links for the signature and
> > hash files.
> >
> 
> Works fine for me as well, Firefox on Windows 7.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> > Do you get any error message or at least see any hint that could bring us
> > forward?
> >
> > As alternative, what is happening when you use the Apache server?
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source/
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Steele, Raymond
> >> Cc: us...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Steele, Raymond
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I
> >>> am looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point 
> >>> me
> >>> in the right direction. I am looking for the tarball.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source
> >>>
> >>
> >>  From that URL, do you see the row labeled "Source tarballs"?  That's what
> >> you want.  It is available in three different archive/compression formats.
> >>
> >> But remember, that is not the "latest" code.  That is the code from 4.0.
> >> The most recent code is what you get out of the trunk in Subversion.
> >> Information on retrieving that is here:
> >>
> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html
> >>
> >> Regardsm
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>> Raymond
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>

Sometimes it is necessary to clear the browser's Internet cache to clear such a 
situation.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Possible broken link: from other.html

2013-08-07 Thread Marcus (OOo)


Am 08/07/2013 02:21 PM, schrieb Jennings, Rory:

I am trying to download the AOO SDKs, but there is an error on this page
in your javascript when using IE8 (my company's policy, and I have no
admin rights to install an alternative). The error is in
download_other.js: Object doesn't support this property or method (line
96, character 2 which I believe is referring to PLATFORM.indexOf but I
don't have much experience with this sort of thing so I can't be sure).
I would appreciate it if this could be fixed ASAP as I need to evaluate
the use of these SDKs.


The alternative link that Rob provided you should solve the urgent need.

However, I would like to investigate this download issue. Please can you 
give me the output of the following webpage (to copy & paste the data in 
the table is enough):


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

Furthermore, do you have any problems on 
"http://www.openoffice.org/download/"; to start the download when 
clicking into the big green box?


Thanks in advance.

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])

On 7 August 2013 21:14, Raphael Bircher  wrote:

> Am 07.08.13 21:04, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
>
>  On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:35:30 +0200
>> janI  wrote:
>>
>>  On 7 August 2013 17:28, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
>>>
>>>  2013/8/7 FR web forum 

  I pull up this issue.
> The error occurs again since two weeks.
>
>
>  Today, forums alternate between error 1040 and being slower than a
 snail.
 It is not possible to access them right now.

  I think you have some fast snails in your area :-)
>>>
>>> At least the vm itself seems relative ok now.
>>>
>>> However, I can see that there has been mysql problems earlier, seems to
>>> be
>>> the old problem, that httpd tries to grap more connections than
>>> available.
>>>
>>> This time I could also see that the mysql buffer spaces had been pretty
>>> full, without knowing the forum software, I would say that some of the
>>> tables should be converted to innodb. We did that on mwiki, and that
>>> change
>>> alone allowed mysql to handle a lot more parallel select statements
>>> (60-70%
>>> of the total).
>>>
>>> In general the configs are ok for normal daily traffic but cannot handle
>>> peak situations.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> jan I.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Regards
 Ricardo



  For interested look at:
>> INFRA-6097 which request mysql optimization and
>> INFRA-6098 which request httpd/ats/php optimization
>> They are assigned to me, but when I do it, I need somebody to help
>> test...any volunteers ?
>>
> Just before one outage of the forum today there were 150 users online,
>> which is a long way short of the maximum logged of 294. An interesting
>> thing I have noted is that it is often slow, leading to an error 10040 at
>> about 0930 UTC+1; this happens quite regularly.
>>
>>  Maybe this is the backup. Bugzilla has the same behavure at the same
> time. Or ASF Server simply don't like morning ;-)
>

good tip to the forum adminidtrator, backup script start at 6:46 UTC, with
a sqldump, then generating/encrypting backup files and finally rsync to the
backup server. This costs some cpu cycles and takes memory. This can cause
a simualted peak situation, when some users (30-40) at the same time are
quite active then the vm will have a problem.


rgds
jan I.


>
> Greetings Raphael
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

2013-08-07 Thread Steele, Raymond

Thanks, that works.  I'm not sure about the what is going on with my browser 
(Firefox), but when I clicked the other links, the page would just refresh.

-Original Message-
From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:05 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Steele, Raymond; us...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page

Am 08/07/2013 08:43 PM, schrieb Steele, Raymond:
> Rob,
>
> Thanks for the response. I am looking for the 4.0 code. I clicked the link, 
> but it is not going anywhere. Does it work for you?

Yes, for me all 3 links are working, also the links for the signature and hash 
files.

Do you get any error message or at least see any hint that could bring us 
forward?

As alternative, what is happening when you use the Apache server?

http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source/

Thanks

Marcus



> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Steele, Raymond
> Cc: us...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice Download Page
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Steele, Raymond  
> wrote:
>> I download page does not seem to be displaying the correct information. I am 
>> looking to download the latest version 4.0 source.  Can someone point me in 
>> the right direction. I am looking for the tarball.
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source
>>
>
>  From that URL, do you see the row labeled "Source tarballs"?  That's what 
> you want.  It is available in three different archive/compression formats.
>
> But remember, that is not the "latest" code.  That is the code from 4.0.  The 
> most recent code is what you get out of the trunk in Subversion.  Information 
> on retrieving that is here:
>
> http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html
>
> Regardsm
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Raymond

[Website]

2013-08-07 Thread candidcactus



3rd try - hope it works -

 Original Message 
*Subject: *[Website]
*Date: *Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:18:40 -0700
*From: *candidcactus 
*To: *dev@openoffice.apache.org


Things must be tough for spam.  I received this message on my email being 
rejected:

   Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 dev@openoffice.apache.org

   Technical details of permanent failure:
   Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for 
the recipient domain
   openoffice.apache.org by mx1.us.apache.org. [140.211.11.136].

   The error that the other server returned was:
   552 spam score (7.0) exceeded threshold 
(DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML,DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,
   HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS

only because I included a screenshot of the error (really, only to be clear and 
helpful).
Without the screenshot it is harder to describe. But here goes
   I cannot sign up for the forums.  I get the error message "Invalid signature, 
...".
   The signature is not invalid.  What to do?

 Original Message 

*Subject:*[Website]

*Date:*Tue, 06 Aug 2013 05:46:24 -0700

*From:*candidcactus

*To:*dev@openoffice.apache.org   
  
  
It's

  hard to know where to send this problem.  I've been trying off and
  on for days to register to the community forums.

  Here is the message I get:   I've tried many variations of the
  signature, but never really believed it was the problem.

  Any suggestions?




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Website]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, candidcactus wrote:

>
> 3rd try - hope it works -
>

This list strips all image attachments. The best thing to do in this case
is to use our issue reporting mechanism, Bugzilla, to file a bug. You are
allowed to attach images with your issue.

BZ link:

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/

You will need to establish an account on BZ to do this.
Here is more information:
http://www.openoffice.org/qa/issue_handling/pre_submission.html

Alternatively, you could use our Support Forums:
http://forum.openoffice.org/

You'll need an account to post new messages to the forums.

Thanks for your interest in Apache OpenOffice, and hopefully, you'll get
resolution to your problem soon.




>
>  Original Message 
> *Subject: *[Website]
> *Date: *Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:18:40 -0700
> *From: *candidcactus 
> *To: *dev@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> Things must be tough for spam.  I received this message on my email being
> rejected:
>
>Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>
>  dev@openoffice.apache.org
>
>Technical details of permanent failure:
>Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server
> for the recipient domain
>openoffice.apache.org by mx1.us.apache.org. [140.211.11.136].
>
>The error that the other server returned was:
>552 spam score (7.0) exceeded threshold (DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML,DC_IMAGE_**
> SPAM_TEXT,DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO,**HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,
>HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,**RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
>
> only because I included a screenshot of the error (really, only to be
> clear and helpful).
> Without the screenshot it is harder to describe. But here goes
>I cannot sign up for the forums.  I get the error message "Invalid
> signature, ...".
>The signature is not invalid.  What to do?
>
>  Original Message 
>
> *Subject:*[Website]
>
> *Date:*Tue, 06 Aug 2013 05:46:24 -0700
>
> *From:*candidcactus>
>
> *To:*dev@openoffice.apache.org   It's
>   hard to know where to send this problem.  I've been trying off and
>   on for days to register to the community forums.
>
>   Here is the message I get:   I've tried many variations of the
>   signature, but never really believed it was the problem.
>
>   Any suggestions?
>
>
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: epm location?

[top posting]
never mind on this. It seems only the msweet.org epm url is currently
working correctly for building at the moment.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> It seems we have two different urls in our Building Guides for epm.
>
> The one listed on this page:
> (1)
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
>
> and the one listed on this page:
> (2) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
>
> Is there a preference so we can make the epm url the same for all our
> building guides.
>
> --
>
> -
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
>  -- Jon Bon Jovi
>



-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM, janI  wrote:

> On 7 August 2013 18:55, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>
> > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> >
> >> Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
> >> On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
> >> that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
> >> for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
> >> installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
> >> not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> >>
> >
> > May we frame the problem in more technical terms, just to know what is
> > broken? For example, why is this affecting only Windows and why is Java 6
> > not recognized in your build? Could the problem be in detection rather
> than
> > in the actual compatibility?
> >
> > Java issues were extensively discussed in earlier times, so here's a
> quick
> > summary that also answers most of the questions in this thread:
> > - As of 4.0, OpenOffice can be built with Java 5, 6 or 7
> > - Whatever you use for building, the resulting binary has a "Java
> > baseline" of 1.5 as per http://wiki.openoffice.org/**
> > wiki/Policies/Java_Usage<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Policies/Java_Usage>(means: runs with
> Java 5, 6 or 7)
> > - We built 4.0 with Java 6 (on Linux at least; not 100% sure about other
> > platforms)
> >
> > In general, I agree that we should build on the most secure platform
> > available. But, based on the above, what is the relationship between
> > "building on Java 7" and "running on Java 6"? To reuse Rob's Windows XP
> > argument, sure we should build on a supported (by Microsoft) Windows
> > version, but, if at all possible/reasonable, we shouldn't break
> > compatibility with Windows XP.
> >
>
> I am sorry if this posting is obvious to everyone, but reading the remarks,
> make me think there are some confusion about what we mean with using java
> for development and runtime.
>
> One of the strength of java is "program once, run everywhere" . This is
> accomplished by by 2 magic trix (compared to eg. C++).
> 1) Java does not compile to machine code but to pcode (a virtual machine),
> therefore you can build the program on linux, and run the build on window
> (or even one of the big mainframes).
> 2) Java also does late binding (think of a very smart dll), so libraries
> are not part of your build.
>
> This means you can use a java development 1.7 on any platform, to make a
> build that runs on any platform and (nearly) any java runtime version. As
> an example I use areca backup, its a java program, the exact same jar files
> run on vista,xp,win7,ubuntu and even android, areca is programm towards
> java 1.4, and I have 1.6 and 1.7 installed depending on platform.
>
> The problem is the classes and the API. If our code use just a single java
> 1.7 specific call, the runtime must be at least 1.7. This is however no
> problem today, our code is build for the classes and api available in java
> runtime 1.5, so it will run there.
>
> Oracle have promised to keep the API and classes for 1.4 and forwards
> stable, and available in new versions. They are pretty good at living up to
> the promise
>
> So in theory we can change build environment to java 1.7 and not tell user,
> as long as we only use 1.5 API and classes. As part of a release cycle, we
> should of course test once with runtime 1.5.
>
> I wrote "in theory" because in the real world, we might want to (in future
> releases) use the 1.7 api for e.g. performance reasons, when that time
> comes we would have to make a wrapper class, just like we have in C++ to
> cover differences Linux/windows.
>
> Sorry again, if I misread the postings, but this is very much different
> from the XP scenario.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>
Thank you for this great explanation! So basically, review the AOO java API.


> >
> > Regards,
> >   Andrea.
> >
> >
> > --**--**-
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>



-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

open office 4

2013-08-07 Thread ian burnby

i did the update from 3 and now i can't find any of my files,,what
can i do to get them back?

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

2013-08-07 Thread Fernando Cassia

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows are:
> - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
> - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
> - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on Widnows
> are reporting to update to JRE 7

Yes, Java 6 on windows is EOL'd.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html

FC


-- 
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un
Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

2013-08-07 Thread Fernando Cassia

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Peter Eberlein
 wrote:
>
> If Java 6 has been dropped and Java 7 wasn't found on the system, wouldn't
> it be better to replace the general MsgBox "There was no Java environment
> found" by "Java 7 or higher wasn't found"?
> Otherwise people who know that they have 1.6 installed may be confused.

+1

FC

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

2013-08-07 Thread Fernando Cassia

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:47 AM, janI  wrote:
> question is do we also want to force our customers
> to use java 1.7 ?

Yes :) On Windows Java 6 is EOL'd.

On Linux, most distros ship OpenJDK7  already which is Java 1.7

One of the few remaining OpenJDK6 holdouts announced the switch to OpenJDK7
http://sylvestre.ledru.info/blog/2013/08/05/switch-to-openjdk-7

Just my $0.02
FC
-- 
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un
Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM, janI  wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2013 18:55, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>
>> > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> >
>> >> Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
>> >> On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
>> >> that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
>> >> for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
>> >> installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
>> >> not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
>> >>
>> >
>> > May we frame the problem in more technical terms, just to know what is
>> > broken? For example, why is this affecting only Windows and why is Java 6
>> > not recognized in your build? Could the problem be in detection rather
>> than
>> > in the actual compatibility?
>> >
>> > Java issues were extensively discussed in earlier times, so here's a
>> quick
>> > summary that also answers most of the questions in this thread:
>> > - As of 4.0, OpenOffice can be built with Java 5, 6 or 7
>> > - Whatever you use for building, the resulting binary has a "Java
>> > baseline" of 1.5 as per http://wiki.openoffice.org/**
>> > wiki/Policies/Java_Usage<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Policies/Java_Usage>(means: runs with
>> Java 5, 6 or 7)
>> > - We built 4.0 with Java 6 (on Linux at least; not 100% sure about other
>> > platforms)
>> >
>> > In general, I agree that we should build on the most secure platform
>> > available. But, based on the above, what is the relationship between
>> > "building on Java 7" and "running on Java 6"? To reuse Rob's Windows XP
>> > argument, sure we should build on a supported (by Microsoft) Windows
>> > version, but, if at all possible/reasonable, we shouldn't break
>> > compatibility with Windows XP.
>> >
>>
>> I am sorry if this posting is obvious to everyone, but reading the remarks,
>> make me think there are some confusion about what we mean with using java
>> for development and runtime.
>>
>> One of the strength of java is "program once, run everywhere" . This is
>> accomplished by by 2 magic trix (compared to eg. C++).
>> 1) Java does not compile to machine code but to pcode (a virtual machine),
>> therefore you can build the program on linux, and run the build on window
>> (or even one of the big mainframes).
>> 2) Java also does late binding (think of a very smart dll), so libraries
>> are not part of your build.
>>
>> This means you can use a java development 1.7 on any platform, to make a
>> build that runs on any platform and (nearly) any java runtime version. As
>> an example I use areca backup, its a java program, the exact same jar files
>> run on vista,xp,win7,ubuntu and even android, areca is programm towards
>> java 1.4, and I have 1.6 and 1.7 installed depending on platform.
>>
>> The problem is the classes and the API. If our code use just a single java
>> 1.7 specific call, the runtime must be at least 1.7. This is however no
>> problem today, our code is build for the classes and api available in java
>> runtime 1.5, so it will run there.
>>
>> Oracle have promised to keep the API and classes for 1.4 and forwards
>> stable, and available in new versions. They are pretty good at living up to
>> the promise
>>
>> So in theory we can change build environment to java 1.7 and not tell user,
>> as long as we only use 1.5 API and classes. As part of a release cycle, we
>> should of course test once with runtime 1.5.
>>
>> I wrote "in theory" because in the real world, we might want to (in future
>> releases) use the 1.7 api for e.g. performance reasons, when that time
>> comes we would have to make a wrapper class, just like we have in C++ to
>> cover differences Linux/windows.
>>
>> Sorry again, if I misread the postings, but this is very much different
>> from the XP scenario.
>>
>> rgds
>> jan I.
>>
>>
>>
> Thank you for this great explanation! So basically, review the AOO java API.
>

It is a bit more complicated than that.   The Java language itself has
evolved, not just the libraries. There are bytecode changes as well.
The difference between Java 1.7/1.6 is not very big, but there are
more significant differences if you need to maintain compatibility
with Java 1.5.  Not impossible, but it would be extra effort.

And remember, the "cost" of supporting old platforms is not just the
dev work.  It also involves QA and support..  If we say we "support"
something then we really ought to be testing in, not just saying that
we not aware of any problems.  The OpenOffice brand should mean that
users can run on any supported platform and have a good experience.
IMHO we should not say we "support" a platform unless we're willing
and able to meet that kind of expectation.

As a practical matter we cannot be testing every platform on 3
different JVM versions.  That's not going to happen.  The test matrix
is too large.  Eve

Re: [discuss] drop support for Java 5 and Java 6 for Windows

2013-08-07 Thread Dave Fisher


On Aug 7, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM, janI  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7 August 2013 18:55, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>> 
 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
 
> Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
> On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I recognized
> that it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
> for Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
> installation on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does
> not recognize an installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> 
 
 May we frame the problem in more technical terms, just to know what is
 broken? For example, why is this affecting only Windows and why is Java 6
 not recognized in your build? Could the problem be in detection rather
>>> than
 in the actual compatibility?
 
 Java issues were extensively discussed in earlier times, so here's a
>>> quick
 summary that also answers most of the questions in this thread:
 - As of 4.0, OpenOffice can be built with Java 5, 6 or 7
 - Whatever you use for building, the resulting binary has a "Java
 baseline" of 1.5 as per http://wiki.openoffice.org/**
 wiki/Policies/Java_Usage<
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Policies/Java_Usage>(means: runs with
>>> Java 5, 6 or 7)
 - We built 4.0 with Java 6 (on Linux at least; not 100% sure about other
 platforms)
 
 In general, I agree that we should build on the most secure platform
 available. But, based on the above, what is the relationship between
 "building on Java 7" and "running on Java 6"? To reuse Rob's Windows XP
 argument, sure we should build on a supported (by Microsoft) Windows
 version, but, if at all possible/reasonable, we shouldn't break
 compatibility with Windows XP.
 
>>> 
>>> I am sorry if this posting is obvious to everyone, but reading the remarks,
>>> make me think there are some confusion about what we mean with using java
>>> for development and runtime.
>>> 
>>> One of the strength of java is "program once, run everywhere" . This is
>>> accomplished by by 2 magic trix (compared to eg. C++).
>>> 1) Java does not compile to machine code but to pcode (a virtual machine),
>>> therefore you can build the program on linux, and run the build on window
>>> (or even one of the big mainframes).
>>> 2) Java also does late binding (think of a very smart dll), so libraries
>>> are not part of your build.
>>> 
>>> This means you can use a java development 1.7 on any platform, to make a
>>> build that runs on any platform and (nearly) any java runtime version. As
>>> an example I use areca backup, its a java program, the exact same jar files
>>> run on vista,xp,win7,ubuntu and even android, areca is programm towards
>>> java 1.4, and I have 1.6 and 1.7 installed depending on platform.
>>> 
>>> The problem is the classes and the API. If our code use just a single java
>>> 1.7 specific call, the runtime must be at least 1.7. This is however no
>>> problem today, our code is build for the classes and api available in java
>>> runtime 1.5, so it will run there.
>>> 
>>> Oracle have promised to keep the API and classes for 1.4 and forwards
>>> stable, and available in new versions. They are pretty good at living up to
>>> the promise
>>> 
>>> So in theory we can change build environment to java 1.7 and not tell user,
>>> as long as we only use 1.5 API and classes. As part of a release cycle, we
>>> should of course test once with runtime 1.5.
>>> 
>>> I wrote "in theory" because in the real world, we might want to (in future
>>> releases) use the 1.7 api for e.g. performance reasons, when that time
>>> comes we would have to make a wrapper class, just like we have in C++ to
>>> cover differences Linux/windows.
>>> 
>>> Sorry again, if I misread the postings, but this is very much different
>>> from the XP scenario.
>>> 
>>> rgds
>>> jan I.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Thank you for this great explanation! So basically, review the AOO java API.
>> 
> 
> It is a bit more complicated than that.   The Java language itself has
> evolved, not just the libraries. There are bytecode changes as well.
> The difference between Java 1.7/1.6 is not very big, but there are
> more significant differences if you need to maintain compatibility
> with Java 1.5.  Not impossible, but it would be extra effort.
> 
> And remember, the "cost" of supporting old platforms is not just the
> dev work.  It also involves QA and support..  If we say we "support"
> something then we really ought to be testing in, not just saying that
> we not aware of any problems.  The OpenOffice brand should mean that
> users can run on any supported platform and have a good experience.
> IMHO we should not say we "support" a platform unless we're willing
> and able to meet that kind of expectation.

Re: Review bug-fix for 122881

On 8/7/13 9:10 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Am 07.08.13 21:03, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>> Am 08/07/2013 08:52 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
>>> Hi at all
>>>
>>> Bug: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122881
>>>
>>> The bug says, that the application icon is not visible on Mac OS X
>>> 10.5.8. I investegate in this bug, and found out, that the actual
>>> main.icns is not compatible with Mac OS X 10.5.8. 10.6 and heighter
>>> works find.
>>>
>>> I created a new main.icns who is compatible. I also tested the Icon on
>>> 10.7 but I have not tested on 10.6 and 10.8.
>>>
>>> To test this you have simply to overwrite
>>> /Applications/OpenOffice.app/Contents/Resources/main.icns wich the one i
>>> provide in the bug.
>>>
>>> If there are no objections, I will commit this to the branch AOO40. I'm
>>> not sure, if i should commit this in the main, because we plain to drop
>>> the support for 10.5.x
>>
>> I would never commit any changes into a stable branch without
>> confirmation. Furthermore, the issue is not flagged as approved
>> showstopper nor has it a target version.
>>
>> Of course, I'm not the release manager ;-) but I wouldn't do it.
> That's the reason why I ask for reviewing ;-) And for 10.5.8 and
> probabily 10.4 this is a funny, but also nasty bug. You simply don't see
> the icon in the dock ;-) And we still support 10.4 and 10.5.
> 
> And by the way, the fix is trivial, and affects Mac OS X only

what's exactly the difference between the old and your new icon?

Propose the issue as a showstopper and attach icon to the issue.

Juergen


> 
> Greetings
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release

On 8/7/13 8:44 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb  wrote:
>>>
 On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
 On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt 
>> wrote:

> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti 
 wrote:
>>
>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
 On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget"
 trap,
> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it
>>> doesn't
> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should
>>> re-evaluate
> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
> relevant.
>
 in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for
 practical
 reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be
 fixed as
 well.
 We should really be careful here and should focus on the most
 serious
 issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers
>> for
 4.0
 were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.

>>>
>>> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My
 suggestion
>>> was
>>> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED
>> blockers
>>> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be
>>> rejected
>>> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community
>>> member,
> to
>>> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody
 who
>>> is
>>> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review
 makes
> sense
>>> in my opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>  we have volunteers who are ready to
> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only
>>> offers
> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
>
 where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this?
>>> Nobody
 should plan with other peoples time and willingness

>>>
>>> One issue:
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
>>>
>>> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a
 lot of
>>> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
> attracting
>>> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work
>>> whether
>>> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
> opportunity
>>> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had
 great
>>> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language,
 Summer
>>> is
>>> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time,
 telling
>>> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release
 next
> month
>>> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
> actually
>>> did this Pootle administration work.
>>
>>
>> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails
>> it
>>> seems
>> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
>> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working
>> on
>>> 4.0 ?
>
> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>
> I see you have created new project names and used again a new
>> naming
> scheme, why?
>
> old aoo40
>
> new a00401
>
> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>
 I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the
>> db
 easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.


>
>
>> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>
> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and
 add
> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all
 inactive
> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the
 latest
> templates
>

 so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a
 motiva

Re: Review bug-fix for 122881