tall on windows still ?
>
I tested once with a master from the Provo tinderbox and it did install in
parallel correctly so I'm keeping my hopes up for 3.5.x
Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> Good feedback plino ! :-)
Sometimes I manage to contribute positively ;)
--
View t
Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> It is well recommended to use daily builds from
> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/. They include the very last
> fixes and can be installed in parallel with the announced builds.
>
That may be true for other OSes but not for Windows. Once LO gets to 3.5.x
that wil
Cor Nouws wrote:
>
> Well, I don't see any betas coming for the 3.4.x branch, so whether is
> has been added or not, does not make sense.
>
Unless TDF is going to adopt the absurd Chrome (and now Firefox) version
model, the next version should be 3.5.0 indeed. I guess we (Windows users)
will h
Cor Nouws wrote:
>
> Plus - especially with the unfortunate experience from 3.4.0, and to do
> something good for users, testers, marketing etc - IMO it is better that
> in the end we have three weeks extra, than that we lack three days.
> So I would really love to be on the save side ..
>
Th
I'm running the
master~2011-05-26_21.20.06_LibO-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe build
and I get the same error message I got in 3.4.0 Beta2
Does this mean that this fix was not committed to the trunk? Or is it
another similar error?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentf
I'm not a dev (and this mailing list is for devs only).
But your problem isn't related to doc compatibility (or any format, for that
matter).
If the person you are sending the file doesn't the font you are using and
the font used to replace doesn't have the symbols you are using, the only
option
Hi all
May I suggest that all the translation files for the Windows setup (after
unpacking) are placed in a subfolder (e.g. trans) and the setup.ini modified
accordingly?
I.e. from
[languages]
count=104
default=1033
lang1=1078,trans_af.mst
...
to
[languages]
count=104
default=1033
lang1=1078,t
> Go for it ! :-) if you need help setting up or connecting your
> build
> hardware - do get in touch. [ the context for this is - that there is
> -no- shortage of good ideas for consuming developer resource - only a
> shortage of developer resource ;-].
>
>
I'm aware of that. I don't prete
Now that 3.4 Beta 4 is out, is there any chance that someone could automate
the creation of daily/nightly builds from the master for all platforms?
Currently only Linux-FC11 users have regular daily builds from master
(although curiously not from the 3.4 branch?)
--
View this message in context:
> If you mean the --enable-release-build switch, that has been introduced to
> the master branch only.
>
This means that it won't be available in the Windows nightlies either
(unless there are plans to build master nightlies, currently there is only
an empty 3.4 folder)
> Please note that we ha
>
> > Am I wrong to assume that a current nightly build from the 3.4 branch
> > is a better option for Beta testing (since the dev build fix was
> > committed) than the official Beta4?
>
> Right - that should be so.
>
> > Why not skip Beta4 and release Beta5? It's not unusual in software
>
d release Beta5? It's not unusual in software
development to skip releases...
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Michael Meeks [via Document Foundation Mail
Archive] wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 01:13 -0700, plino wrote:
> > When you do a code freeze for a Beta (or
When you do a code freeze for a Beta (or any) release it means that a branch
is created and to that branch only fixes are added but not new features,
correct?
Are the fixes to the Beta branch incorporated to the main code (trunk?)?
I.e. the "trunk" contains all the fixes from the Beta branch plus
Hi Jan
Could this also be the case for daily Windows builds?
There is a single daily build (from April 20th) at
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Windows_Release_Configuration/
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/REMINDER-Release-3-4-0-rc1-from-ooo-build
Hi Tor
Thank you for your clear answers!
Yes, that is more or less the definition of "release candidate", isn't it?
> Please remember that it in principle isn't known in advance which release
> candidate is good enough to be declared a release. The last release
> candidate is *exactly* the same a
I'm not sure I understand this: does this mean that RC releases are not
considered temporary builds and will be allowed to replace the previous
stable build?
Will Beta4 overwrite my stable 3.3.2?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ANNOUNCE-libreoffice-3-3-99-
Thank you for the quick answer, Tor. I was finding it odd that nobody had
reported it before.
Could this be the same bug that you patched with a workaround previously?
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31494
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Error-
Am I the only one getting this error message under Windows (XP Pro SP3
Eng_US)?
http://img153.imageshack.us/i/lo34beta2.png/
I'm using LO 3.4 Beta 2 (but this also occurred under Beta 1, but not on
3.3.2)
BTW congratulations (and thanks) to the Devs for cutting over 50Mb on the
Win installer ;)
> I think I will keep the release of this beta as a secret. Anyhow there
> is more than enough interesting news :-)
Too late :)
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-3-4-Beta-1-available-tp2825422p2825422.html
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/04/15/libreoffice-3-4-beta-1-avail
Hi all
This is a warning/question:
I just installed LO 3.4 Beta 1 under Windows XP Pro SP3 (from the
install_multi.exe file) and there are no buttons on the interface (just
text) and opening any ods/odt file (curiously no error for doc or xls!)
results in "General Error. General Input/Output Erro
I meant what the OP was talking about: "an update service".
Obviously if there is such a service one would need to have a method to
check for such updates. But that is totally secondary comparing to
downloading updates instead of whole packages.
It's obvious that most (all?) developers have thou
It is quite interesting that this message from one of the members of the
Steering Committee is unanswered since 12 February.
Maybe I'm wrong about the importance of this feature but it puzzles me that
both OOo and LO seem to ignore having an update mechanism.
IMO adding this single feature would
I think jonathon-4's suggestion is brilliant!
Keep the currently used formats in the Save As (sorted please!) dialog and
old cryptic formats in a Export to option. This way no formats are lost but
functionality is increased.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/
Jesús, obviously a CD/DVD installer should include everything.
This is a suggestion for a downloadable installer where size matters :)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/MS-Windows-about-dictionaries-installation-tp2382566p2404670.html
Sent from the Dev mailin
If I may contribute with my 2cents why not use the best ideas already on the
field?
The perfect installer IMHO should start with a simple box to select the
language used by the installer itself (where the detected locale is
suggested)
An example is the first screen for the FLOSS Abiword
http://w
Absolutely fantastic!
Brilliant use of all this wasted space in a wide screen while writing in a
portrait page!
This just makes me think how the MS innovative big fat "ribbon" on top was
wasting valuable screen space.
Congratulations to whoever had this brilliant idea.
I hope it is implemented
Jean-Baptiste, it's not a matter of how many languages a user is able to
write but the possible combinations (e.g. for a Canadian English and French
for a Swiss English and German, etc)
What I think would make sense is that the installer by default selects
English and the locale language for both
Works perfectly under Windows XP using LO 3.3
Here is the file if someone wants to test this under other OSes
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2347109/Odd_or_Even.ods
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/A-file-to-show-8192-discontinuities-crashes-Calc-tp2135015p2372973
Can you get rid of those 120 zero byte files or are these needed?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RC4-Windows-size-analysis-tp2302919p2319901.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffi
As soon as you remove the extra language packs and dictionaries, as well as
the extensions, I'm sure it will go down to the same size as the OOo
installer ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RC4-Windows-size-analysis-tp2302919p2311479.html
Sent from the Dev m
This might not be a Dev problem but since it's still related to the Windows
installer...
The RC4 installer correctly identified my location (once) and modified the
installer language accordingly (I would prefer to choose it myself even if
the installer provides a suggestion)
The text on the fir
Thanks for clarifying that, Kevin.
I still prefer a good ol' forum any day :)
I agree with you that devs should not waste time with forums. But on the
other hand, even an ignorant like me ;) who can't write a like of code,
could contribute on such site as a Moderator or a Forum Helper...
Cheers
Hi Michael
I did receive the email by Tor at the time. But I checked the Nabble site
and my message was listed as pending until 1 AM, i.e 12 hours later... (and
I have subscribed to this mailing list)
This is the first time I'm using a mailing list that converts to a Forum
and honestly I hate it
Wow. It took 12 hours for my post to show up... I'm really looking forward
to a real Forum...
I agree Tor, only an advanced user like me (and apparently you :) ) has an
empty All Users Desktop folder. And obvioulsy I wouldn't allow a desktop
shortcut if I wasn't testing ;)
But what worries me i
Oops.. Sorry, I forgot to mention that this was under Windows XP Pro Sp3.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Serious-bug-on-LO-Windows-installer-tp2294391p2294709.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
I had already detected this and confirmed with the latest installer (for
RC4):
LO installer somehow modifies the attributes of the All Users Desktop folder
when it adds the LibreOffice lnk to the desktop.
The All Users Desktop folder is a System Folder and usually can not be
modified or deleted.
Sure, no problem ;)
Leftover files/folders
C:\Program Files\LibreOffice 3\share
C:\Program Files\LibreOffice 3\share\prereg
C:\Program Files\LibreOffice 3\share\uno_packages
C:\Program Files\LibreOffice 3\share\prereg\bundled
C:\Program Files\LibreOffice 3\share\prereg\bundled\registry
C:\Progra
Only the bad ones :)
And we don't want LibreOffice to be like them, do we? ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Leftovers-tp2269442p2271080.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice
After uninstalling LO RC3, I noticed there are a few leftover files under
Program Files\Libreoffice 3 and keys in the registry in HKLM if LO is
installed for All users and in HKCU if it is installed for Current user
only. The files/entries are the same that OOo also leaves so these must be
some le
Hi Jesús
After some extensive testing I found out that if I accept the defaults
(Install for All users instead of Only for me
which is what I always do) I can get the "Open with" option for ODFs as well
as MS Office files.
So the problem here is also where in the registry the keys are saved (HK
I'm afraid it's not fixed yet. I think the problem is that e.g. ODS is
associated with OOo's scalc as the default application and to LibO's scalc
as an alternate program. These are not stored in the SAME registry Key.
For xls which is associated with MS Excel (on my system), both OOo and LibO
a
I'm afraid it's not fixed yet. I think the problem is that e.g. ODS is
associated with OOo's scalc as the default application and to LibO's scalc
as an alternate program. These are not stored in the registry Key.
For xls which is associated with MS Excel (on my system), both OOo and LibO
are alt
I just tried cleaning it all (registry keys under Software included both for
HKCU and HKLM) and after installing OpenOfice 3.3.0RC9 and your build, I get
both options in the "Open with" menu IF I'm selecting an ODS or ODF file.
The same doesn't happen for a DOC or XLS file where only the OpenOffic
I'm testing several scenarios. I will report back ;)
The scenario that didn't work was:
OpenOffice RC8 > LibreOffice RC2 > OpenOffice 3.3.0rc9 > Your LibO
I couldn't "Open with" OpenOffice Writer because it was associated with LibO
Writer
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.docume
Jesús, thank you for the new build. Unfortunately it doesn't fix the problem.
Even if it did, the next time a user installs an OOo update wouldn't the
problem appear again? If you add your fix to LO only, OOo updates won't
unfix it?
I can't see any other permanent solution than renaming the exes.
Michael, please don't regard this as a personal complaint.
I think many users who are currently using OOo will have this problem when
they try LO (and update any of them).
I think it's a bad idea to cause grievance to users who are giving it a go.
IMO it will make them stick to OOo...
Changing
Every time I update LibO or OOo (and like me most users who are experimenting
with LibO but want to keep up with the currently more stable OOo) the file
associations get messed up for the reasons explained by Jesús.
Have the devs reached any decision on this?
--
View this message in context:
ht
Hi Jesús
I uninstalled both and I got the two options in "Open with" as you
mentioned.
I guess this problem is more common than expected.
And probably will happen to many previous OpenOffice users?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Windows-Executable-name-
Yes, I'm doing this for testing purposes
This is not odd at all.
Most LibreOffice users will be OpenOffice users.
And I imagine that many will install LibreOffice without uninstalling
OpenOffice at least for some time...
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/W
I apologize for insisting on this one.
Personally I have renamed the 6 program files to l*.exe (soffice.exe can not
be renamed) and I haven't found any problems.
This allows me to associate and open files with both OpenOffice and
LibreOffice.
Can anyone tell me if this change is under considera
Thank YOU for the feedback.
Looking forward to RC2 ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Support-info-links-still-point-to-openoffice-org-tp2101694p2105001.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_
In the Windows Add/Remove list each program has a link "Click here for
support information".
Clicking on this link for LibreOffice RC1 displays the following window
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n2101694/Support.png
(I know the image is too wide but that seems to be a problem with
Renaming the executables from s*.exe to l*.exe has been discussed and apart
from the differentiation of office suites it has a practical implication for
Windows users:
An extension (e.g. ods) is associated with an exe file (e.g. scalc.exe). If
the user has installed OpenOffice AND LibreOffice, th
Is that the final bug tracker?
Does it include all open bugs reported for Openoffice as well?
Otherwise I could just be reporting a bug for LO which is already known for
OOo... Unless that is the idea?
In any case I assumed from previous discussions on this mailing list that a
simple validation
>Wait - you also complained about RC1's size ? and then again here
with
>a link ? :-) and Charles told you're we're working on fixing it, which
>is what we are doing ...
No. LO is NOT working on it. This has been discussed on other topics since
late Nov (Beta1 or 2)
http://nabble.document
Regarding this comment
>On the other hand - now is not a wonderful time to be discovering
>this :-) The outline of what was suggested wrt. multi-language installs
>has been on the table for several months, and was there in Beta3; RC1 is
>not an ideal time to notice these issues.
It is in
56 matches
Mail list logo
