On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >
> > On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported
> >> build system... I ran into a LOT of issues.
> >
> > Such as, f
On 1 Dec, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce
> 4.2.0-B1.
I think we are still a ways from being ready for a Beta release. For
instance, we need to do another sweep of the bundled software to see
what needs to be updated. For instance, I rec
On 2 Dec, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Playing devils advocate, does it make sense to introduce
>> Yet Another Build System at this stage?
>>
>>
> I anticipated this question.
>
> Firstly, we don't only have dmake and gbuild as our build sy
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported
>> build system... I ran into a LOT of issues.
>
> Such as, for example?
for starters:
o zip 3.0.
o GIO
> I think that the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
with everyone.
Fine with me, let's keep unchanged everything that worked well for
4.1
On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for
Peter Kovacs wrote:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=20819 ...
The best way imho is to let the users vote. How about follwing flow:
1) check if we can include the extention by license or find an
agreement with the maintainers.
2) Put a call to Vote if the package should be included or no
On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported
build system... I ran into a LOT of issues.
Such as, for example? I think that the guide we have at
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#CentOS_5
u
Am 02.12.2017 um 23:13 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Dec 2, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Playing devils advocate, does it make sense to introduce
Yet Another Build System at this stage?
I anticipated this question.
:)
Se
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Playing devils advocate, does it make sense to introduce
>> Yet Another Build System at this stage?
>>
>>
> I anticipated this question.
:)
>
> Secondly SCons can replace ./
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Playing devils advocate, does it make sense to introduce
> Yet Another Build System at this stage?
>
>
I anticipated this question.
Firstly, we don't only have dmake and gbuild as our build systems. We also
use Ant, meta-build tools like bui
On 12/01/2017 05:17 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>> This is absolutely a basic feature, i don't understand why there are
>>> more advanced regression types such as logaritmepic or poware when a
>>> polynomial regression is lacking.
> Maybe because we have an *Office* Suite and not a *Mathematical* Suite?
T
Am 02.12.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 14:40 +0100 schrieb Marcus:
We said we would like to give our users a voice. Wouldn't it be
appropriate to give them exactly this voice? This is a clear
concept to
me.
maybe.
Sorry when this sounds too negative but tha
Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 09:19 -0500 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Playing devils advocate, does it make sense to introduce
> Yet Another Build System at this stage?
I see it as for the search for the future build system. There is always
the discussion popping up what to use.
Gbuild seem to make some
Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 14:40 +0100 schrieb Marcus:
>
> > We said we would like to give our users a voice. Wouldn't it be
> > appropriate to give them exactly this voice? This is a clear
> > concept to
> > me.
>
> maybe.
>
> Sorry when this sounds too negative but thats my opinion. I think a
Am 02.12.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way.
This is my list (only Windows):
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/aoo-build-pack-beta.lst
>
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel
>> wrote:
>>
>> I use "--with-pack
Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way.
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
> according to:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
>
> Don't know
Reminder: 3 days left (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) for submitting your
FOSDEM proposal. You just need a title and a short abstract for the
moment. Submission instructions below.
Regards,
Andrea.
Il 27/11/2017 08:42, Andrea Pescetti ha scritto:
Reminder: submission deadline for proposal is in 7
I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
according to:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
Don't know if there is a better way...
Maybe you can see more in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_
OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
build --all -P -- -P
Like this?
build openofficebeta --all -P -- -P
Or this?
build --all openofficebeta -P -- -P
Or here?
build --all -P -- -P openofficebeta
None seem to work :(
=
Building module solenv
=
Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
know where this icon
Playing devils advocate, does it make sense to introduce
Yet Another Build System at this stage?
Also, there are a few projects that I know of that
use SCons. In general, one of the most popular common
threads related to them are "Why the hell are you using SCons?" :)
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 3:05 AM
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>
>>> Apart from that: +1
Am 02.12.2017 um 14:44 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we sho
Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>
>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>
>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with
Am 02.12.2017 um 11:22 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
Am Freitag, den 01.12.2017, 18:17 +0100 schrieb Marcus:
Am 01.12.2017 um 18:09 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
For me the existance is not a strong argument. The bug is with 149
votes
quite popular. The discussion there is a repeatance that this is
basic
featu
Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know
where this icon set is visible... ;-)
Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:
https://home.apach
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know
where this icon set is visible... ;-)
Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOf
Am Freitag, den 01.12.2017, 18:17 +0100 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 18:09 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> > For me the existance is not a strong argument. The bug is with 149
> > votes
> > quite popular. The discussion there is a repeatance that this is
> > basic
> > feature.
>
> but we don't kno
sounds great from what you write. Lets try SCons build system.
Where can I find your changes so I can help? Have you checked them into
trunk?
I have some expreience with python, which will come in handy.
Meanwhile I read Scons Documentation.
Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 10:05 +0200 schrieb Damjan
Hi
After days of failing to add a few new simple features to gbuild, I've now
reached my limits, and have begun experimenting with the SCons build system
instead.
It's starting to work. Having ported some of gbuild.mk, LinkTarget.mk and
platform/freebsd.mk to SCons, as well as a module's local gb
31 matches
Mail list logo
