[GitHub] [openoffice] Pilot-Pirx opened a new pull request, #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Pilot-Pirx opened a new pull request, #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179 (no comment) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Pilot-Pirx commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537377925 We should really get rid of the German parts in our source! Beware: Because of the string changes this can only be merged when we have a working translation process and are able to provide updated SDF files shortly after. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Mechtilde commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Mechtilde commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537454915 Please give me a hint if you want a new SDF-File esp imported into Pootle for version 4.2.X Am 07.05.23 um 12:13 schrieb Matthias Seidel: > We should really get rid of the German parts in our source! > > Beware: Because of the string changes this can only be merged when we have a working translation process and are able to provide updated SDF files shortly after. > -- -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Pilot-Pirx commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537461345 There have been a lot of string changes since the last import/export. Has the process been properly tested? If we merge this PR (and PR 168) we would need SDF files for all languages. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Mechtilde commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Mechtilde commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537481993 There is still Ubuntu 18.04. so I have no idea what I should test. Am 07.05.23 um 16:57 schrieb Matthias Seidel: > There have been a lot of string changes since the last import/export. > Has the process been properly tested? > > If we merge this PR (and PR 168) we would need SDF files for all languages. > -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Pilot-Pirx commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537482877 Test if the new strings are imported and exported OK. Last time we had a big mess. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Mechtilde commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Mechtilde commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537485055 I have no idea why it happens. so I have no idea how I can produce the tests. Therefore I need support and help. Am 07.05.23 um 18:18 schrieb Matthias Seidel: > Test if the new strings are imported and exported OK. > > Last time we had a big mess. > -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[GitHub] [openoffice] Pilot-Pirx commented on pull request #179: Translate string name STR_UNBENANNT
Pilot-Pirx commented on PR #179: URL: https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/179#issuecomment-1537487457 That's what we have dev@ for... ;-) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: User Installation Process Feedback
Hi All, Any news on this topic? If we want it to happen we need to work on it... Regards, Matthias Am 21.03.23 um 16:19 schrieb Matthias Seidel: > Hi All, > > Now that AOO 4.1.14 is released wouldn't it be the perfect time to start > development on an AppImage (or similar)? > > Regards, > > Matthias > > Am 18.02.23 um 13:48 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Hi, >> >> Am 15.02.23 um 18:05 schrieb Yury Tarasievich: >>> On 15/02/2023 19:39, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >>> I documented 8 projects that tried to achieve that and compared them in the attached spreadsheet, and there are more. >>> The document is a beaut, but you've excluded Flatpak and Snap, one of >>> which you sort of condemn and one of which you recommend, nevertheless. >>> >>> Why not AppImage, for which half a work is already there, AFAIU ? (I >>> mean `installed` method of packaging) So it hasn't got sandboxing. Is >>> it such a big deal? >> I don't think we need sandboxing in the first place. >> >> An easy to install package for Linux would be good, so maybe we can try >> to do an Appimage package after the release of AOO 4.1.14? >> >> Regards, >> >> Matthias >> >>> Also, any new packaging method would have to integrate into the >>> existing build framework? Which isn't exactly a model of clarity and >>> robustness? >>> >>> -Yury >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: User Installation Process Feedback
For those just now looking into this here is a link: https://docs.appimage.org/ If we switch to this packaging it appears that we can significantly reduce the many Linux packages we create when we release. Interesting. Best, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On May 7, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Hi All, > > Any news on this topic? > > If we want it to happen we need to work on it... > > Regards, > >Matthias > >> Am 21.03.23 um 16:19 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Hi All, >> >> Now that AOO 4.1.14 is released wouldn't it be the perfect time to start >> development on an AppImage (or similar)? >> >> Regards, >> >>Matthias >> >>> Am 18.02.23 um 13:48 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Am 15.02.23 um 18:05 schrieb Yury Tarasievich: On 15/02/2023 19:39, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > I documented 8 projects that tried to achieve that and compared them > in the attached spreadsheet, and there are more. The document is a beaut, but you've excluded Flatpak and Snap, one of which you sort of condemn and one of which you recommend, nevertheless. Why not AppImage, for which half a work is already there, AFAIU ? (I mean `installed` method of packaging) So it hasn't got sandboxing. Is it such a big deal? >>> I don't think we need sandboxing in the first place. >>> >>> An easy to install package for Linux would be good, so maybe we can try >>> to do an Appimage package after the release of AOO 4.1.14? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>>Matthias >>> Also, any new packaging method would have to integrate into the existing build framework? Which isn't exactly a model of clarity and robustness? -Yury - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
Re: User Installation Process Feedback
Hello Damjan, hello all the main problem for AOO to become part of a distribution is, that it isn't possible to build it along the distribution policy from source. I can say it especially for the Debian-based distributions. Kind regards Mechtilde Am 15.02.23 um 17:39 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:52 PM wrote: Hello GB Mac, Le 2023-02-15 06:36, GB Mac a écrit : OpenOffice remains a perpetual developer project in Linux. It's a problem to do with your Linux distribution (which you don't specify). See with them so that the DEB or RPM package is set online in their repositories. Both the technical and political reality of software installation on Linux, is that Linux distribution repositories never could have been, and never will be, the one and only source of software to install. Repositories legally cannot package commercial software for example, and as the (now obsolete) Autopackage project quite correctly noticed around 2005, and its founder Mike Hearn gave a talk about to Gentoo developers at some conference in those days, the Linux distributions' repository has a monopoly on easy software installation, which distributions use as a political weapon against software that they don't like, whether it isn't UNIX-y enough, or has a strange licence, or isn't popular enough, or they just don't like for some personal reason. And there is trouble in paradise even for packages that make it into a distro repository. Distributions often ship old versions, and update on an awkward schedule. Inkscape used to have a release schedule where new releases would come out shortly after Ubuntu releases. As a result they had to deal with endless duplicate bug reports, from Ubuntu users installing the old version, and reporting bugs that were already fixed, but with no easy way to install the new version. Eventually Inkscape changed its release schedule to allow Ubuntu to package its latest version, but you can see the problem with this: should tens of thousands of packages really be forced to release in lock-step with Ubuntu? So the problem of 3rd party software installation has plagued Linux since inception: I documented 8 projects that tried to achieve that and compared them in the attached spreadsheet, and there are more. In bug 46333 users wanted an Autopackage of OpenOffice. Luckily in recent years the Linux distributions seem to have finally woken up, and begun officially supporting installation of 3rd party software, Ubuntu with Snap, and Red Hat with Flatpak. LibreOffice already offers Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, although I've found them to be of poor quality. Flatpak can work on Ubuntu too. AppImage isn't sandboxed at all. Snap is a disaster and will probably fail like most Canonical technologies. I definitely think Flatpak is the way to go. However it will require some development. We don't (only) use the standard GTK file dialogs, which automatically go through a "Portal" to allow us out of the sandbox, so we have to use the Portal API to gain permission to read the selected document somehow. Regards Damjan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
