On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 23:01:01 +
Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 9 December 2014 22:19:41 GMT+00:00, Marcus wrote:
> >Am 12/09/2014 11:10 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> >> Marcus wrote:
> >>> Am 12/09/2014 06:23 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> If we are working towards a new release, could
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding [;<) on PMC approval of any slip-stream.
>
> I don't understand why full rebuilds are required. The only crucial file
> that needs signing is the .exe that is downloaded and extracts the actual
> setup files. All it do
On 9 December 2014 22:19:41 GMT+00:00, Marcus wrote:
>Am 12/09/2014 11:10 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 12/09/2014 06:23 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
If we are working towards a new release, could the "Java not found"
>>> > message from Windows be extended to be more i
> On 09 Dec2014, at 17:41, Roberto Galoppini
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-12-09 21:23 GMT+01:00 Rory O'Farrell :
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:14:24 -0500
> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > > On 09 Dec2014, at 15:11, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:48:44 -0600
> > > Eliza
2014-12-09 21:23 GMT+01:00 Rory O'Farrell :
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:14:24 -0500
> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > > On 09 Dec2014, at 15:11, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:48:44 -0600
> > > Elizabeth Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > >> UPDATE:
> > >> It's my entire devel
Am 12/09/2014 11:10 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/09/2014 06:23 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
If we are working towards a new release, could the "Java not found"
> message from Windows be extended to be more informative? It could be
> amended to say something like "OpenOffice
+1 (non-binding [;<) on PMC approval of any slip-stream.
I don't understand why full rebuilds are required. The only crucial file that
needs signing is the .exe that is downloaded and extracts the actual setup
files. All it does is extract a number of fixed files and then run the
extracted se
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/09/2014 06:23 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
If we are working towards a new release, could the "Java not found"
> message from Windows be extended to be more informative? It could be
> amended to say something like "OpenOffice needs a 32 bit Java, which
> has not been found
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM, jan i wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>> > I don't know if this is helpful or not. I'm not in a position to check.
>> >
>> > Thinking out loud:
>> >
>> > There are two cases
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:14:24 -0500
Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Hi
> > On 09 Dec2014, at 15:11, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:48:44 -0600
> > Elizabeth Morgan wrote:
> >
> >> UPDATE:
> >> It's my entire development team that's encountering the issue at the
> >> moment --
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > wrote:
> > I don't know if this is helpful or not. I'm not in a position to check.
> >
> > Thinking out loud:
> >
> > There are two cases of signatures.
> >
> > 1. Digital signing of installab
Hi
> On 09 Dec2014, at 15:11, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:48:44 -0600
> Elizabeth Morgan wrote:
>
>> UPDATE:
>> It's my entire development team that's encountering the issue at the
>> moment -- we're having to refit a good number of computers, and all of
>> them are detec
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:48:44 -0600
Elizabeth Morgan wrote:
> UPDATE:
> It's my entire development team that's encountering the issue at the
> moment -- we're having to refit a good number of computers, and all of
> them are detecting it as malicious after downloading from Sourceforge
> via off
Elizabeth,
Have you filed an issue on this matter?
louis
> On 09 Dec2014, at 14:48, Elizabeth Morgan
> wrote:
>
> UPDATE:
> It's my entire development team that's encountering the issue at the moment
> -- we're having to refit a good number of computers, and all of them are
> detecting it a
UPDATE:
It's my entire development team that's encountering the issue at the
moment -- we're having to refit a good number of computers, and all of
them are detecting it as malicious after downloading from Sourceforge
via official link from openoffice.org
On 12/9/2014 1:37 PM, Marcus wrote:
The downloads ARE the ones from sourceforge. That's specifically why I'm
reporting it.
Steps to problem:
go to openoffice.org/download
select download
get redirect to Sourceforge
get file to download
Once file downloaded, chrome deemed it malicious
On 12/9/2014 1:37 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 12/09
Am 12/09/2014 04:29 PM, schrieb Elizabeth Morgan:
Not technically "broken" per say in the notion of "won't actually
connect to the .exe file," but Chrome keeps registering all of the Open
Office downloads as malicious. Even past versions.
please make sure that you download only from the officia
Am 12/09/2014 06:23 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
If we are working towards a new release, could the "Java not found"
> message from Windows be extended to be more informative? It could be
> amended to say something like "OpenOffice needs a 32 bit Java, which
> has not been found on this machine"
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:16:54 +0100
Oliver Brinzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > is that OO does not see, or if it sees, does not print to, an existing
> printer.
>
> please see my issue 99074:
> changing windows default printer not reflected in open document
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.
Hi,
> is that OO does not see, or if it sees, does not print to, an existing
printer.
please see my issue 99074:
changing windows default printer not reflected in open document
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=99074
Regards
Oliver
--
If we are working towards a new release, could the "Java not found" message
from Windows be extended to be more informative? It could be amended to say
something like "OpenOffice needs a 32 bit Java, which has not been found on
this machine".
Many Windows users know they have Java installed an
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I don't know if this is helpful or not. I'm not in a position to check.
>
> Thinking out loud:
>
> There are two cases of signatures.
>
> 1. Digital signing of installable components, such as DLLs and such. This
> is also important bu
Hi
FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by the
infra Contractors.
Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts.
rgds
jan i.
On 9 December 2014 at 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> Andrea,
>
> Although I consider this very important, I am so far back the learning
> curve on working with the actual bits that I don't think I can provide
> anything competent in a short time. If you think there is an useful way
> for me
Not technically "broken" per say in the notion of "won't actually
connect to the .exe file," but Chrome keeps registering all of the Open
Office downloads as malicious. Even past versions.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr
Andrea,
Although I consider this very important, I am so far back the learning curve on
working with the actual bits that I don't think I can provide anything
competent in a short time. If you think there is an useful way for me to move
along the curve in time to be useful, I am open to it.
O
See today: http://hpics.li/5e52083
This ad go to h**p://maribiz.net
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Hello Sir/Miss, I'm really want to build openoffice, and program it in win
8.1 system metro.But I encountered a problem is :
/tmp/aoo-4.1.1/main/solenv/wntmsci12.pro/misc/build/dmake-4.12/path.c:321：对‘cygwin_conv_to_posix_path’未定义的引用
/tmp/aoo-4.1.1/main/solenv/wntmsci12.pro/misc/build/dmake-4.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:15:58 +
Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
> A common complaint on the Forum is that OO does not see, or if it sees, does
> not print to, an existing printer. There are numerous examples of this and I
> can extract a list of threads if necessary. Might the interface between a
A common complaint on the Forum is that OO does not see, or if it sees, does
not print to, an existing printer. There are numerous examples of this and I
can extract a list of threads if necessary. Might the interface between a 32
bit OO and a 64 bit Windows OS require some reconsideration fo
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote:
> > On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
> >> Marcus > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
> >> we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where
> >> we as project (PM
On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
>> we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where
>> we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough
>> contr
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where
we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough
control.
I do have a certificate and access key to the si
On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote:
> On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
>> Marcus wrote:
>>
>>> Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenk wrote:
> And, I didn't review the
35 matches
Mail list logo
