Native Language Confederation. Community Council
Dear Colleagues! good afternoon. The http://www.openoffice.org/native-lang/ "Native Language Confederation" in the NLC Mission refers to the Council of the Community and provides a link to the Council's website (http://council.openoffice.org/) and a list of selected members of the Council of the NLC (http://council.openoffice.org/#nlc) The Community Council page gives an error of 404, because it does not exist. Question: Does the Community Council no longer exist? Or is "Native Language Confederation" no longer relevant? I think that the information on the official website should be up-to-date and error-free 404. -- Yours faithfully, Aleksey Evgenievich Harlamenkov. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Native Language Confederation. Community Council
Am 04.07.2018 um 13:58 schrieb Алексей Евгеньевич Харламенков: The http://www.openoffice.org/native-lang/ "Native Language Confederation" in the NLC Mission refers to the Council of the Community and provides a link to the Council's website (http://council.openoffice.org/) and a list of selected members of the Council of the NLC (http://council.openoffice.org/#nlc) The Community Council page gives an error of 404, because it does not exist. Question: Does the Community Council no longer exist? Or is "Native Language Confederation" no longer relevant? both. Now it's only the L10N which counts. I think that the information on the official website should be up-to-date and error-free 404. Thanks for your hint. As the re-work is taking more time than we have at the moment, I've just deleted the dead links for now. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs: I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me. In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone has stopped caring at this point in time. Let us conclude for now: 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for this. I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up. incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code. PS: CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years. 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6. In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer. To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*. And it is only relevant on Linux, right? IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger impact for our users. My 2 ct. Marcus On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote: What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines? It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As long as we use Java 8. But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8. Nothing else. To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other members! Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski: The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it. How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore. On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote: Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: Hi everbody. I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people. Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus - Java 8 Update 172 - Apache Ant 1.10.3 What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x? What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-) My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x. But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted? Regards, Matthias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus wrote: > Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > >> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided >> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they >> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a >> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they >> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can >> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed >> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we >> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I >> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me. >> >> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic >> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone >> has stopped caring at this point in time. >> >> >> Let us conclude for now: >> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of >> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some >> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for >> this. >> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up. >> > > incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code. > > PS: > CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years. > > 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. >> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without >> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS >> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port >> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6. >> > > In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer. > To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*. > > And it is only relevant on Linux, right? > > IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we > also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger > impact for our users. > You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this will have overall though. > > My 2 ct. > > Marcus > > > > > On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote: >> >>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines? >>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As >>> long as we use Java 8. >>> >>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8. >>> Nothing else. >>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other >>> members! >>> >>> >>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it. How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore. On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Hi everbody. >>> >>> >>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we >>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some >>> stuff to >>> get out to the people. >>> >>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. >>> Containing some security fixes, plus >>> >>> >>> - Java 8 Update 172 >>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3 >>> >> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x? >> > What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use > it... ;-) > My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO > 4.1.x. > > But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted? > > Regards, > Matthias > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- -- MzK "Less is MORE."
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs: I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me. In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone has stopped caring at this point in time. Let us conclude for now: 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for this. I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up. incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code. PS: CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years. 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6. In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer. To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*. And it is only relevant on Linux, right? IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger impact for our users. You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this will have overall though. I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats I get the following (2018-01-01 until today). BTW: Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the OS where OpenOffice should be installed on. OS % --- Windows 86,1165 Macintosh7,8424 Unknown 4,9012 Linux1,0621 Android 0,0762 BSD 0,0011 Solaris 0,0006 But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will be for 64-bit. Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them? Marcus On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote: What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines? It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As long as we use Java 8. But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8. Nothing else. To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other members! Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski: The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it. How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore. On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote: Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: Hi everbody. I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people. Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus - Java 8 Update 172 - Apache Ant 1.10.3 What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x? What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-) My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x. But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted? Regards, Matthias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Marcus wrote: > Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk: > >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus wrote: >> >> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >>> >>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me. In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone has stopped caring at this point in time. Let us conclude for now: 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for this. I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up. >>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code. >>> >>> PS: >>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 >>> years. >>> >>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. >>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6. >>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer. >>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*. >>> >>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right? >>> >>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version >>> we >>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much >>> bigger >>> impact for our users. >>> >> >> You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit >> Linux >> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from >> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact >> this >> will have overall though. >> > > I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 discussion is > also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? Somewhat, if we continue using CentOS for the Linux builds. Right now, gstreamer 1.0 as opposed to 0.10 is only supplied in CentOS 7. CentOS 7.x is supplied via the RH 7.x pipeline which is 64-bit only. There IS a CentOS 7.x - 32 bit provided by the CentOS community. I don't know if this stream will continue. > If so, a solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net > stats I get the following (2018-01-01 until today). > > BTW: > Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the OS > where OpenOffice should be installed on. > Yes. It would be better if you could get counts per AOO package name across all languages. > > OS % > --- > Windows 86,1165 > Macintosh7,8424 > Unknown 4,9012 > Linux1,0621 > Android 0,0762 > BSD 0,0011 > Solaris 0,0006 > > But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will be > for 64-bit. > > Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them? > > > Marcus > > > > On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote: >>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines? > It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. > As > long as we use Java 8. > > But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8. > Nothing else. > To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from > other > members! > > > Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > > The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus >> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... >> ie, >> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it. >> >> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be >> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued >> support >> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... >> It's >> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-sy
Re: gstreamer status for 4.2.0-dev?
On 03/07/2018 Jim Jagielski wrote: +1. I'll start on a CentOS7 VM. Makes sense to me. So our indication for the Release Notes would be something like "OpenOffice 4.2.0 is built on CentOS 7 and is expected to run on Linux-based systems released in YEAR or later (CentOS 7, Ubuntu XYZ...)". I'll check versions of glibc and the "YEAR" and "XYZ" placeholders above when I have time. We might also conclude that an Ubuntu LTS version is the best choice, but honestly CentOS 7 should definitely be "old enough" these days. BTW, up to now I've been using VMware Fusion, but will likely start using Vbox instead... I'm assuming most people are using that anyway and it would be nice to be able to share the VMs with others. I use KVM images. But indeed it's a wise idea to have something that we can share, and I believe Vbox images can be converted for use in KVM. I've done it in the past if I recall correctly. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
