Thorsten Behrens wrote (06-05-11 14:02)
Done - link in the description, and in the welcome mail.
Fine that it is helpful - that many may read and use it :-)
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
_
Michael Meeks wrote:
> I guess we need Thorsten (or someone) to add it to the mailing list
> description / subscription process - so people know what they're
> getting.
>
Done - link in the description, and in the welcome mail.
-- Thorsten
pgplZDqIFlHlo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi Cor,
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:30 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, and sorry for the delay on my side.
Excellent work :-)
> * Here is a 2nd draft:
>http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Use_of_MailList
>pretty ready for use, IMHO ;-)
Sure -
Hi Michael,
Michael Meeks wrote (28-04-11 18:05)
Reading this again I missed a few obvious pieces:
Thanks for your comments, and sorry for the delay on my side.
* Here is a 2nd draft:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Use_of_MailList
pretty ready for use, IMHO ;-)
* Linked
Reading this again I missed a few obvious pieces:
* Listen before speaking
+ get to know the people you're interacting with on the
lists before sending mail
+ in particular, attempting to explain things to people
that are
Hi Cor,
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 17:05 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> I placed a first draft here:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Cornouws
>
> Looking forward to comments, ideas, ..
Its a great start; can you put it in a public place so it can be
jointly edited ?
One of my bu
Kohei Yoshida wrote (28-04-11 16:53)
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 00:21 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Do we already have a simple text on the website/wiki, that explains the
use of the developer list, and what expectations are?
That might be linked to by devs when needed, thus preventing them to get
bored o
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 00:21 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Do we already have a simple text on the website/wiki, that explains the
> use of the developer list, and what expectations are?
> That might be linked to by devs when needed, thus preventing them to get
> bored or 'funny' or wasting time on t
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Tor Lillqvist wrote (28-04-11 14:50)
And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except
Hamburg?
>>>
>>> Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install
>>> snap-shots, dev builds, betas or however they were call
Tor Lillqvist wrote (28-04-11 14:50)
And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone except
Hamburg?
Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install
snap-shots, dev builds, betas or however they were called,
I meant, were such builds *produced* by anyone except the Hamburg
guys
>> And is/was that OOo-dev thing ever used by anyone
>> except Hamburg?
>
> Oh yes. It was the primary opportunity for anyone to install snap-shots,
> dev builds, betas or however they were called,
I meant, were such builds *produced* by anyone except the Hamburg guys? I do
believe they were *
Hi Tor,
Tor Lillqvist wrote (28-04-11 10:48)
But can you tell me that you *really* aren't aware of the OOo-dev
builds& build process? You developed on OOo:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
Sure, I am/was a "registered domain developer", but I always worked
in the "ooo-
Hi NoOp,
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 18:43 -0700, NoOp wrote:
> "I'm not a developer, but I consider my self to be an above-average
> user/tester with exeperience in installing, bug reporting et al on OOo
> and more recently LO. I can/do install test versions on everything from
> linux to Win (2K, XP, a
> But can you tell me that you
> *really* aren't aware of the OOo-dev builds & build process? You
> developed on OOo:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
Sure, I am/was a "registered domain developer", but I always worked in the
"ooo-build" a.k.a. "go-oo" build mechanism.
On 04/26/2011 11:54 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process.
>
> Thanks for the mind-reading, but I think you need to try harder. For
> the record, I have never heard about that.
>
> --tml
>
>
I was replying to MM.
But come on Tor; I've great respect for yo
Linking in the footer of the list is a good idea I think. Also, why not
give a description (and list of expectations) of the developer list at the
dev list signup page and at the mailing list description page? Seems like
knowing the "rules" _before_ engaging would be useful.
http://www.libreoffi
Hi all,
Thorsten Behrens wrote (27-04-11 10:42)
Thanks Christian, that's the ~sole bit of really useful info in this
whole thread. FWIW, the relevant bug is
Furthermore, with due respect, this thread shows me some other useful
information. Namely that there is a limit to what developers may
> > On Windows it wants to package jre which is not there. So:
> > $ touch ../../solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/jre-6u22-windows-i586.exe
> > $ dmake openofficedev
> OK, so there's a bug. It should only attempt to include the JRE when
> you build "openofficewithjre" target - so apparently the Produc
HI Andras, *,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Andras Timar wrote:
> 2011/4/26 Christian Lohmaier :
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM, NoOp wrote:
>>
>> There probably aren't any patches necessary, just try whether the
>> openofficedev target works (I suspect it does, but cannot test now
>> my
NoOp wrote:
> The OP requested that beta versions be installed w/o affecting existing
> version. You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process. You are well
> aware of the issue, Yet you are asking posters to this thread to "dig
> out the documentation, test that it still works"? Amazing.
>
Hi N
Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> There probably aren't any patches necessary, just try whether the
> openofficedev target works
>
Thanks Christian, that's the ~sole bit of really useful info in this
whole thread. FWIW, the relevant bug is
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36437
Cheers,
--
2011/4/26 Christian Lohmaier :
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM, NoOp wrote:
>> On 04/26/2011 07:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote:
Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 & LO3.4B2 .deb installs
failed on my systems (miserably & yes, I'll
> You are well aware of the OOo-dev build process.
Thanks for the mind-reading, but I think you need to try harder. For the
record, I have never heard about that.
--tml
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.free
On 04/26/2011 02:39 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi NoOp,
>
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:05 -0700, NoOp wrote:
>> >So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome.
>> > If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a
>> > prototype patch you'll find som
Hi *,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Michael Meeks
wrote:
> Â trying to overwrite
> '/opt/libreoffice/basis3.4/share/config/soffice.cfg/simpress/transitions-ogl.xml',
> which is also in package libobasis3.4-impress 3.4.0-103
Don't bother with that one, it's already fixed.
https://bugs.freede
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM, NoOp wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 07:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote:
>>> Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 & LO3.4B2 .deb installs
>>> failed on my systems (miserably & yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend
>> [...]
Hi NoOp,
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:05 -0700, NoOp wrote:
> > So - please do try to fix the bug yourself, patches are most welcome.
> > If you come with some solid research, and some concrete suggestions / a
> > prototype patch you'll find some helpful feedback.
>
> Right...
> https://bugs.free
Hi Allen,
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 11:30 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> I would +100 this suggestion.
Brilliant - the way to +100 is to write a patch :-) and/or test the
feature so we can be sure it will work.
> I would propose that all Beta and Dev releases
So - we have one more
On 04/26/2011 07:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi NoOp,
>
> On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote:
>> Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 & LO3.4B2 .deb installs
>> failed on my systems (miserably & yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend
>
> So - if you have a Linux system, an
I would +100 this suggestion. AFAIK, under Windows, there is no easy way to
do a side-by-side installation, and certainly no way within the reach of a
typical user. Without the ability to do a side-by-side, many users are not
going to test the Beta builds, and the quality of the release will suff
Hi NoOp,
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:13 -0700, NoOp wrote:
> Just wanted to point out that both LO 3.4B1 & LO3.4B2 .deb installs
> failed on my systems (miserably & yes, I'll go bug adding this weekend
So - if you have a Linux system, and you're capable of installing
packages; then most like
Ed: Would you please search for a bug report covering this topic - and
if there is none, create one?
I have raised issue https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36575,
"Allow parallel installation of Beta and stable releases"
And we need to add a warning to our homepage, that standard
i
On 04/22/2011 04:02 PM, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
> Tor Lillqvist schrieb:
>
> Ed Drinkwater wrote:
>>> What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a
>>> coherent, constructive contribution to the issue!
>>
>> That is because I am basically an incoherent dribbling idiot, la la la
Tor Lillqvist schrieb:
Ed Drinkwater wrote:
What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a
coherent, constructive contribution to the issue!
That is because I am basically an incoherent dribbling idiot, la la la, na na
splutgh xzbbpfft! Me wants more porridge!
Sometimes i
> What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a
> coherent, constructive contribution to the issue!
That is because I am basically an incoherent dribbling idiot, la la la, na na
splutgh xzbbpfft! Me wants more porridge!
--tml
___
What is that supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't sound like a
coherent, constructive contribution to the issue!
What "help" do you need? I am not the one who compiles that packages,
so I am not in a position to change settings that have to be changed
while compiling.
When the code for L
PS: Ed: this is a list where developers discuss developer issues.
It is not intended for people to bring up ideas/wishes .. You may do so,
but (part of) the answer always is: can you help ;-)
Cor
Tor Lillqvist wrote (22-04-11 12:21)
set when compiling the product. I'm not sure [...] why any
> set when compiling the product. I'm not sure [...] why any help is needed.
Yeah. Maybe if you just wish hard enough your dream will come true.
--tml
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman
Not sure how I could help. I'm not a programmer, but as I understand it
settings like where to install and whether to replace other packages are
set when compiling the product. I'm not sure how anyone other than the
person compiling the packages can help, or indeed why any help is needed.
To
> Can you please make sure that future developer builds are compiled to
> install in a separate folder and do not disturb previously installed
> stable versions.
Anything is possible. It is just a small matter of programming. Maybe you could
help?
--tml
__
I downloaded 3.4 Beta 1 and 3.4 Bata 2 under Windows 7, and in both
cases installing the beta version overwrote the stable version I already
had installed, and even if I set it to install in a different folder the
installer still removed the stable version. Similarly installing the
DEB package
41 matches
Mail list logo
