Re: rtf filter detection order

On 28/07/14 15:11, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 10:14 +0200, Marina Latini wrote: >> Hi All, >> Can someone point out some informations about the rtf filter detection order? >> I know that Calc has its own rtf filter >> (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65017#c19). >> >

Re: rtf filter detection order

On 29/07/14 19:25, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 29/07/14 20:20, Anthonys Lists wrote: >> On 29/07/2014 16:46, Michael Stahl wrote: > It should be possible, for ANY LO document that is stored that way, to > break out the content.xml, read it back into the original application, > and recover

Re: Sort and copy results

On 06/06/14 12:27, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > Good. Now I have someone real I can ask. > > Can I ask in what use case this feature is used? Why does your use case > require that copying and sorting have to be done in one step, rather > than in two separate steps? Why can't LibreOffice treat it as t

Re: Sort and copy results

On 27/06/14 17:22, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 12:42 +0100, Wols Lists wrote: >> Why can't LibreOffice treat it as two separate steps, INCLUDING for >> things like undo? Treat the copy as one operation, then the sort as a >> second operation, and if you

Re: LiMux student "kick-off"

On 17/09/14 13:45, Ptyl Dragon wrote: > ok, then we'll use GL2.1. we'll make sure we use only API used in ES 2 too. > We need simple thing. after all, we are not making a First Person > Shooter. For starters we are just making a 2d rendering engine Just bear in mind, iirc you can't get hardware 2d

Re: [Libreoffice] Fwd: Re: [PATCH] Use a generic unxgcc.mk

On 17/11/10 16:18, René Kjellerup wrote: > > sent from my phone > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "René Kjellerup" > > Date: Nov 17, 2010 5:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Use a generic unxgcc.mk > > To: "Caolán McNa

Re: [Libreoffice] Disable GCC optimizations when building with --enable-symbols

On 17/11/10 18:50, Santiago Bosio wrote: > Hi! > > When LibO is built using --enable-symbols, it still uses -O2 > optimizations, making hard to debug execution with GDB. > > So, I think that it should default to -O2 on a normal build, and to > -O0 when using --enable-symbols. Don't see the point of

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] minor fixes for Base

Cheers, Wol >From 63291f58afa08fadd35f736b6ade308b9d85d66e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:17:46 + Subject: [PATCH] Comment fixes - dead code and spelling mistakes --- dbaccess/source/ui/control/ColumnControlWindow.cxx |2 -- dbaccess/source/ui/control/FieldD

Re: [Libreoffice] newish to git: howto recover from bad merge?

On 19/11/10 08:11, Kevin Hunter wrote: > Hullo List, > > It must be something simple, but I'm having a devil of a time > recovering from a bad merge. Given my transcript below, how do I > recover? > > It usually happens after I've committed a change to my local > repository, that I then sent in as

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: [PATCH 02/12] RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM in components cui options

On 18/11/10 13:36, Kevin Hunter wrote: > As I assume you're using a regex, you might consider catching this by > doing the search and replace in series. Here's an example: > > 1. Catch the 'OUString +?= ...createFromAscii...' case and replace > with 'OUString var( RTL...)' > > search: OUString\s*\

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Impress

On 22/11/10 15:11, Joseph Powers wrote: > Please disregard my Friday patch for Impress. > > Removing the Global High Contrast flag is going to require more work then the > simple remove HC icons project is going to allow. We hard code too many UI > items (text fonts, background color, border colo

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: [PATCH 02/12] RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM in components cui options

On 23/11/10 19:00, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Hi Wol, Kevin, all, > > On 2010-11-21 at 23:48 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote: > >>> Forgive what might be a stupid question, but I've seen >>> >>> String::createFromAscii >>> >>> Will version 2 find those, and should they be replaced? >> Not a stupid question

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] dead code removal etc from Base

Cheers, Wol >From a06e3e0072e38b6c4fb01e00bc9239236f39e3ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:33:20 + Subject: [PATCH] Dead code, translations. --- dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx |7 +-- dbaccess/source/ui/misc/HtmlReader.cxx |3 +-

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] dead code, spelling mistakes in Base

Another one... Cheers, Wol >From b8f2f5fe713747a109f5fc26ab7460341aaf0b93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:41:49 + Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Dead code, spelling mistakes --- .../ui/relationdesign/RTableConnectionData.cxx |6 +--- .../ui/relationdesign/Relation

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Another dead code removal for Base

Cheers, Wol >From a62ec669b4f383a27d645673ae936d073320b1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:56:34 + Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Dead code removal --- dbaccess/source/ui/uno/ColumnModel.cxx |2 -- dbaccess/source/ui/uno/copytablewizard.cxx |2 +- 2 files chang

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] More dead code and spelling mistakes for Base

Cheers, Wol >From c283a346e58711f6d8967d8684eab775cbd3ffd6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:07:16 + Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Dead code and spelling mistakes --- dbaccess/source/ui/browser/brwctrlr.cxx | 36 ++ dbaccess/source/ui/browser/dsEn

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] More spelling mistakes and dead code removal for Base

Cheers, Wol >From f50ae7db959563618b0d8288bb7537939c6f2195 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:50:15 + Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Spelling mistakes and dead code --- dbaccess/source/ui/dlg/CollectionView.cxx |1 - dbaccess/source/ui/dlg/ConnectionHelper.cxx

Re: [Libreoffice] Git question again

On 24/11/10 21:42, Julien Nabet wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a little lost with git again now. > Yesterday, i made first patches by using : > git commit -a > > git format-patch HEAD~1 > > > Now i do : > bin/g pull -r > > and i got this : > = components = > usage: git merge-base [-a|--all] ... >

Re: [Libreoffice] Git question again

On 24/11/10 22:07, Julien Nabet wrote: > Le 24/11/2010 23:03, Miklos Vajna a écrit : >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:42:58PM +0100, Julien >> Nabet wrote: >> >>> Now i do : >>> bin/g pull -r >>> >>> and i got this : >>> = components = >>> usage: git merge-base [-a|--all] ... >>> >>>

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Another Base spelling, dead code patch

Cheers, Wol >From 024ac9b3bd2c83d8cec89edd3aa5149c8e031261 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:16:20 + Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Spelling, dead code removal --- .../source/ui/querydesign/ConnectionLineAccess.cxx |1 - dbaccess/source/ui/querydesign/JoinDesignView.cxx

Re: [Libreoffice] Are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable?

On 23/11/10 15:15, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > While I personally don't mind BSD licenses, I don't think this helps > your goal. The code is bound to be merged, overwritten, copied, moved > and edited. Tracking which line of code is licensed under which license > combo is a job for lawyer detectives

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Another Base cleanup

Cheers, Wol >From 6642a11fbcfa7f2f4f35f5535ffe8c33fa856309 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:04:08 + Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Dead code deletion --- dbaccess/source/ui/querydesign/JoinDesignView.cxx |1 - dbaccess/source/ui/querydesign/QueryDesignView.cxx |1 -

Re: [Libreoffice] Are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable?

On 25/11/10 14:47, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > Because it makes lifes more complex, see above? Do you really want > file.cxx to start like this? > > /** 45 lines of this code come from Wol, who licensed them under the > * BSD. But when you are reading this, it has been merged with 10 lines > * con

Re: [Libreoffice] Are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable?

On 25/11/10 16:44, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Wols, > > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 16:31 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> Have we got a standard LibreOffice header to go into new files ? > Yes COPYING.NEWFILES in the toplevel has the stock header. With no place for people who make MA

Re: [Libreoffice] Are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable?

On 26/11/10 10:43, Michael Meeks wrote: >> Should I try and codify it as a copyright section on >> > http://www.documentfoundation.org/develop/ and in a HACKING file, or >> > would you rather I just went away and left this topic alone? (I don't >> > want to dive into something that is bound to be c

Re: [Libreoffice] Are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable?

On 26/11/10 09:05, David Tardon wrote: > I think that's not possible, because some of the filters (like > WordprocessorML) use XSLT 2.0, which is not supported by libxslt (wasn't > supported the last time I looked, at least). So either we throw > out (or rewrite to XSLT 1.0) all XSLT 2.0 filters an

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] More dead code removal for base

Cheers, Wol >From a894597c0e3814677d83db3dc64588953a6dadd3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:52:28 + Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Remove dead code --- reportdesign/source/core/api/FixedLine.cxx |1 - reportdesign/source/core/api/FixedText.cxx |4 +-

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] yet more dead code in Base ...

Cheers, Wol >From a97c72c28cf1a8ddd23f8236dc1a33fa8c1bf3cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:15:13 + Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Dead code deletion again --- reportdesign/source/core/sdr/PropertyForward.cxx |2 +- reportdesign/source/core/sdr/ReportDrawPage.cxx|

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Dead code in Base again ...

Cheers, Wol >From 921e5ca9caf4c8c6212d67c534debc2d93516e7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:44:32 + Subject: [PATCH 4/4] More dead code removal --- reportdesign/source/filter/xml/dbloader2.cxx |2 +- reportdesign/source/filter/xml/xmlExport.cxx |

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] More dead code removed

Cheers, Wol >From 7b9d332d03d4e3db163303f243b17ac2737b9da8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:00:43 + Subject: [PATCH 5/5] More dead code deletion --- reportdesign/source/ui/dlg/Condition.cxx |7 +++ reportdesign/source/ui/dlg/DateTime.cxx |2 -

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] And yet more dead code gone ...

Cheers, Wol >From 80e48ddcd8d78241849f5e3bdb767477c7c6c9b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:16:29 + Subject: [PATCH 6/6] More dead code deleted --- .../source/ui/inspection/DataProviderHandler.cxx | 14 +++--- .../source/ui/inspection/GeometryHandler.c

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Another one for Base

Cheers, Wol >From 804f503777bff780d82226f37843f3b614a5d5f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:10:42 + Subject: [PATCH] More deleted comments ../../../dbaccess/source/core/misc/0001-More-translations-and-comment-deletion-for-Base.patch --- reportdesign/sourc

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] And another one

Cheers, Wol >From fa312399900437d13fabc456c851be6f971ab3d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:47:37 + Subject: [PATCH 2/2] More comment deletions --- reportdesign/source/ui/report/DesignView.cxx |4 reportdesign/source/ui/report/ReportController.cxx |

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: [PATCH] And another one

On 29/11/10 16:14, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 15:48 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> Cheers, > Looks good, pushed, thanks for that. > > C. > That's all of base scanned. Unless I've missed something (and I've deliberately skipped a few bits, eg tha

[Libreoffice] new download - checking for rpm

Have we lost a patch somewhere? Just trashed my old development directory by mistake :-) so I'm trying to follow the new download and build instructions. ./autogen.sh bombs as follows ... checking whether to enable EPM for packing... yes checking for epm... no EPM will be built. checking which pac

Re: [Libreoffice] new download - checking for rpm

On 01/12/10 19:13, Wols Lists wrote: > Have we lost a patch somewhere? Just trashed my old development > directory by mistake :-) so I'm trying to follow the new download and > build instructions. ./autogen.sh bombs as follows ... > > checking whether to enable EPM for packi

Re: [Libreoffice] new download - checking for rpm

On 01/12/10 21:45, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 07:13:36PM +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> Have we lost a patch somewhere? Just trashed my old development >> directory by mistake :-) so I'm trying to follow the new download and >> build instructions. ./a

[Libreoffice] Is ant a pre-requisite for java support?

On the old build system I always had to do --without-junit, implying that I had --with-java. On the new system I need --without-java or it bombs with "can't find ant" Sorry - I should have backed up my old devel directory so I could go back and find out ... Cheers, Wol _

Re: [Libreoffice] Is ant a pre-requisite for java support?

you have available. So it should detect ant is missing and switch it off, not bomb because it's not there ... Cheers, Wol > > On 12/02/2010 12:10 PM, Wols Lists wrote: >> On the old build system I always had to do --without-junit, implying >> that I had --with-java. >>

Re: [Libreoffice] Is ant a pre-requisite for java support?

itstuff/lotest $ Cheers, Wol > > > On 12/02/2010 12:37 PM, Wols Lists wrote: >> On 02/12/10 11:21, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: >>> Is this when you run the autogen.sh? if it is, i had an issue with it >>> bombing on junit. can you try and change in the autogen.sh from

Re: [Libreoffice] new download - checking for rpm

On 02/12/10 11:45, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:31:53AM +, Michael Meeks > wrote: >> Right - good point; I notice a number of these changes - so I'm working >> through build/distro-config/LibreOfficeLinuxDevel.conf - to switch the >> polarity of the default arguments

Re: [Libreoffice] bootstrap / configure defaults ...

On 02/12/10 12:12, Michael Meeks wrote: > --with-ant-home=$BUILDDIR/$APACHE_ANT > + and have to have a system ant now [ should that be the > default ? ] Mmmm... dunno. There's probably a lot of people like me - not Java developers - who neither need nor want jav

Re: [Libreoffice] Is ant a pre-requisite for java support?

On 02/12/10 14:09, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > Hi Wols, *, > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Wols Lists wrote: >> On the old build system I always had to do --without-junit, implying >> that I had --with-java. >> >> On the new system I need --without-java

Re: [Libreoffice] bootstrap / configure defaults ...

On 02/12/10 15:04, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:44 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> There's probably a lot of people like me - not Java developers - who >> neither need nor want java as part of their normal life > Quite - I'll add an easy hack t

Re: [Libreoffice] defaulting to --without-java ... (?)

On 02/12/10 19:31, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > Hi Sebastian, *; > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:45:17 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: >would anyone scream if we defaulted configure to --without-java ? >>> I would. >> I would not. >

Re: [Libreoffice] defaulting to --without-java ... (?)

On 02/12/10 23:07, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:32:15PM +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> I would agree with this. This is my problem with ant - I have java but >> not ant installed, it worked for me on the old system, and it now fails. > Then install it? That&#x

[Libreoffice] Deleting Java from Base

On 03/12/10 02:26, Kevin Hunter wrote: > I'm absolutely for this, especially in terms of getting any/all > necessaries rewritten in C++ ... but not right now. As others have > stated, like it not, the current product uses Java (e.g. Base) and I > believe it would be foolhardy to default to a build

Re: [Libreoffice] Deleting Java from Base

On 03/12/10 10:48, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:28 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> Where do I start :-) >> >> Seeing as Base is where I want to work, this seems an obvious thing to >> do. I'm guessing that building without Java, then running some

Re: [Libreoffice] Script to find undocumented classes

On 03/12/10 12:11, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:14:54AM +0100, Thorsten Behrens > wrote: >> I find it surprising me actually saying this, but - for the while, I >> think this would be crossing the line of solving a social problem >> by technical means. ;) > Additionally I'm no

[Libreoffice] New bootstrap: another stop

Just trying to build *another* fresh download, with java ... I've installed ant ... autogen --with-java --without-junit --without-epm make and it bombs with this (up to date x86-64 gentoo) Cheers, Wol * * Running the post d

Re: [Libreoffice] New bootstrap: another stop

$ I'm not explicitly using en_GB, but has the l10n problem been fixed live yet? Cheers, Wol On 03/12/10 16:27, Wols Lists wrote: > Just trying to build *another* fresh download, with java ... I've > installed ant ... > > autogen --with-java --without-junit --without-epm >

Re: [Libreoffice] New bootstrap: another stop

Replying to myself again ... And it appears to be a java problem ... changing the autogen arguments to --without-java and it's gone away ... Cheers, Wol On 03/12/10 17:43, Wols Lists wrote: > Replying to myself, if I redo the make, I get > > > anth...@ashdown ~/gitstuff/loja

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] get/setNanos

PLEASE NOTE - I've hardly tested this patch, because I've trashed my devel directory and as you can see from my other mails, I'm having great difficulty getting a working --with-java setup again :-) Oh well ... But, having dug as deep as I can, these two functions seem to be mere shims to call the

[Libreoffice] Another failed setup ...

I wonder. Is the download script flakey? My internet has been a little bit iffey these last few days (we're not used to half an inch of snow over here :-) and it looks as though it's fallen over. Notice the "Read error" below - at which point downloading seems to have stopped instantly, and post-i

Re: [Libreoffice] Another failed setup ...

Just redone. No obvious error - same crash :-( Cheers, Wol On 03/12/10 20:12, Wols Lists wrote: > I wonder. Is the download script flakey? > > My internet has been a little bit iffey these last few days (we're not > used to half an inch of snow over here :-) and it looks as tho

Re: [Libreoffice] Another failed setup ...

On 03/12/10 21:17, Joost Eekhoorn wrote: > Cheers, > Good to see that I am not the only one. > > Before my building on cppunit. > Now I have exact the same problem as you. I can not find a way out. > Hope that someone comes with an idea. > I think it has to do with i10n and en_US.UTF8, but that is

Re: [Libreoffice] Another failed setup ...

On 03/12/10 21:17, Joost Eekhoorn wrote: > Cheers, > Good to see that I am not the only one. > > Before my building on cppunit. > Now I have exact the same problem as you. I can not find a way out. > Hope that someone comes with an idea. > I think it has to do with i10n and en_US.UTF8, but that is

Re: [Libreoffice] New bootstrap: another stop

On 04/12/10 00:05, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > Hi Wols, *, > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Wols Lists wrote: >> Replying to myself again ... >> >> And it appears to be a java problem ... changing the autogen arguments >> to --without-java and it's gone a

[Libreoffice] More java fun

Hoping this'll give a bit more info to the build guys, but I tried the following ... autogen'd without java, make, then autogen'd with and make again ... I got an l10n problem at the start, but then it bombed out with this ... note the undefined reference ... Cheers, Wol Making:all_javavm.

Re: [Libreoffice] Enable build of ure and extension

On 04/12/10 12:57, Gert Faller wrote: > Hi, > > Still working on the 'RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM' task and I have some > problems. > > I've some changes left in : 'clone/ure', 'clone/extension', > 'clone/filters/binfilter/bf_sd', 'clone/filters/binfilter/bf_svx' and > 'clone/filters/binfilter/bf_x

Re: [Libreoffice] More java fun

On 04/12/10 14:13, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 12:04 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> ../../unxlngx6.pro/slo/nativethreadpool.o: In function >> `Java_com_sun_star_lib_uno_environments_remote_NativeThreadPool_create': >> nativethreadpool.cxx:(.text+0x56

Re: [Libreoffice] More java fun

On 04/12/10 15:44, Wols Lists wrote: > On 04/12/10 14:13, Caolán McNamara wrote: >> On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 12:04 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >>> ../../unxlngx6.pro/slo/nativethreadpool.o: In function >>> `Java_com_sun_star_lib_uno_environments_remote_NativeThreadPool_create

[Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

Dunno how to fix it, but I think I've found out what's wrong with my build ... the following is output from autogen checking whether to build with Java support... yes checking for java... /usr/bin/java checking the installed JDK... checked (JDK 1.6.0_20) checking for target java bytecode version..

Re: [Libreoffice] [UX] LO status bar annoyances

On 30/11/10 16:25, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > I too think that the title bar would be the most logical place to put > this info if we were to find a replacement location. But I'm not sure > if it can be easily identified by those users who currently rely on the > save icon status. The save icon is bi

Re: [Libreoffice] [UX] LO status bar annoyances

On 30/11/10 15:24, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 16:11 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote: >> Kohei Yoshida wrote: b) We warn when closing a modified doc anyway, so there is no need to always warn me and use up precious space. I propose to just do away with it.

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

On 05/12/10 11:26, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 16:07 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> I had to add --with-jdk-home=/opt/sun-jdk-1.6.0.20 >> to my gentoo build. > Hmm, I wonder. > > If you go to configure.in and change > > if test "x$with_jdk_home" = "x" -a "$_gij_longver" -ge "4

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

On 05/12/10 14:28, Wols Lists wrote: > On 05/12/10 11:26, Caolán McNamara wrote: >> On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 16:07 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >>> I had to add --with-jdk-home=/opt/sun-jdk-1.6.0.20 >>> to my gentoo build. >> Hmm, I wonder. >> >> If yo

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

On 04/12/10 22:07, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > I had to add --with-jdk-home=/opt/sun-jdk-1.6.0.20 > to my gentoo build. Can you please do a 'ls -al /usr/bin/javac' (assuming java was installed by your distro). I'm guessing it points to a symlink. And if that's a symlink, can you do a -al on that, to

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

On 05/12/10 16:08, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 14:28 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> No luck, it's not working. And what's findhome.class supposed to be? A >> file in the directory? Not there, I'm afraid :-( > Look into the configure.in itself, and

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

On 05/12/10 16:08, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 14:28 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> No luck, it's not working. And what's findhome.class supposed to be? A >> file in the directory? Not there, I'm afraid :-( > Look into the configure.in itself, and

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified?

On 05/12/10 16:54, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 16:35 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> On 05/12/10 16:08, Caolán McNamara wrote: >>> On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 14:28 +, Wols Lists wrote: >>>> No luck, it's not working. And what's findhome.

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified | findhome | MacOSX location ?

On 05/12/10 20:40, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 17:24 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> Yup. findhome found the right place (or I assume it did). >> >> /opt/icedtea6-bin-1.9.1 > Yeah, so what I'd like to see is that findhome (or something like it) is &g

Re: [Libreoffice] configure.in patch for testing ...

On 05/12/10 23:05, Wols Lists wrote: > Another configure to test ... > Cheers, Wol >From 456c58cc44c68978facbdbc57e680758705a337c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wol Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:27:16 + Subject: [PATCH] Fix configure to work on gentoo --- configure.

Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: occured occurred

On 06/12/10 09:53, Takeshi Abe wrote: >> I'm not adverse to changing that API, but its something we should plan >> > for and bundle a whole set of changes together for. > One possible way to gracefully diverge the APIs is providing new API/ABI > with old obsolete ones in the meanwhile, that allow u

Re: [Libreoffice] Java build problem identified | findhome | MacOSX location ?

On 06/12/10 12:57, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> Hmm - but the result of the IRC-discussion was to use (for Mac) >> > /usr/libexec/java_home where available (10.5 and newer), and the >> > hardcoded fallbackpath of either >> > /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/CurrentJDK/Home >> > or

Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1

On 06/12/10 18:49, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Is that really a argument now that most people use broadband? Should we > really care about those wo don't (and downlaod a new version every few > months?) What about those people who *C*an't use broadband? Okay, I wouldn't call 2Mb slow, but we still hav

Re: [Libreoffice] new bootstrap: How do the devellop[ install?

On 07/12/10 09:39, Joost Eekhoorn wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > bin/ooinstall is not mentioned on the new webpage. > > Can you mention "make dev-install" on the webpage? > Can you also mention it in the bash, when the build is ready? Is there an autogen option to tell it where to install? I'm sure th

[Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

I've downloaded the old sqlite driver, which is copyright Sun LGPL 2.1. I was going to try and get that working, and teach myself C++ in the process, but on trying to commit it to my local repo the first thing I get is "you are adding tabs to these files" (no I'm not but never mind :-) So I fix t

Re: [Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

On 09/12/10 19:26, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Wols, > > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 19:07 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> I've downloaded the old sqlite driver, which is copyright Sun LGPL 2.1. > Oh - shame :-) I wonder if there is a newer copy of it in the repos. I just followe

Re: [Libreoffice] Comments on RC1

On 09/12/10 22:21, Marc Paré wrote: > I can see how a USB stick would be a more elegant way of distributing > the distro. The price would seem to be the only problem that I can > see. Framakey (Framasoft) is offering a 4gig stick for 19Euro and 4Eu > shipping. A smaller and less expensive stick cou

Re: [Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

On 10/12/10 10:16, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > Hi, > > > Le 09/12/10 20:07, Wols Lists a écrit : >> I've downloaded the old sqlite driver, which is copyright Sun LGPL 2.1. >> >> I was going to try and get that working, and teach myself C++ in the >> proces

Re: [Libreoffice] LO status bar annoyances

On 10/12/10 21:18, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote: >> All I am going to add is: "which user prefers single-clicks for some >> > status bar items and double-clicks on others, while some are not >> > clickable at all?". > One who has been told / has learned to do so and doesn't bother on any > theory of

Re: [Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

On 13/12/10 11:34, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 12:27 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote: >> So you see, it might not be entirely hopeless after all. > Oh - exactly ! :-) and it would be good to remove that hostile junk > header with apparent Sun ownership claim anyway. Good stuf

Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice WikiHelp discussion

On 13/12/10 10:57, David Nelson wrote: > Personally, I like the idea of editing the help on the wiki rather than > offline. > But could the problem be solved by creating a user group on the wiki and > only allowing editing rights for that group's users? Then we could add > selected > devs, i10n a

Re: [Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

On 13/12/10 14:17, Alexander Thurgood wrote: >> I've seen a couple of things about sqlite *2* that implies it's not a >> > particularly friendly database. 3 may well be an improvement. But >> > anyways, once we've got sqlite in place I'm then going to try and write >> > an engine for LO. That'll be

Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] nuke obsolete use of String

On 13/12/10 14:52, Takeshi Abe wrote: >> p.s. I think we should have a wiki page to list the old String methods >> > and the new OUString equivalents side-by-side with snags listed. (Some >> > of the String methods are sort of OUStringBuffer equivalents, and some >> > are hard to do with OUStrings,

Re: [Libreoffice] hsqldb update

On 14/12/10 22:13, Denny wrote: > Hi there, > > is somebody out there working on an hsqldb upgrade? Not that I know of ... > Version 2.0 has been out there for quite some time, 2.0.1 is well on the way > and as the website > states, the new version is much improved on various ends. It'll proba

Re: [Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

On 15/12/10 20:33, Andrés Domínguez wrote: > 2010/12/13 Wols Lists : >> Can we put a hsqldb database in an odf container? The stuff I saw about >> sqlite 2 was things like "you can't modify a table". It's a very basic >> engine without a lot of the use

Re: [Libreoffice] Base - sqlite - licence grief

On 16/12/10 09:58, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Wols, > > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 01:18 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >> I'm hoping to get time to plough on, but family and christmas are >> getting in the way. Chat off-list if you like and we'll see how far we >> get :-)

Re: [Libreoffice] sw: numbering misbehaviour

On 17/12/10 20:28, Caolán McNamara wrote: > Btw, if you were interested in fixing that numbering problem, You might > be interested in this similar bug, e.g. > > 1) Type some text, select it, change the formatting, e.g. font size to 18. > Now press end to deselect the text and move to the end of th

Re: [Libreoffice] sw: numbering misbehaviour

On 21/12/10 19:16, Octavio Alvarez wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:06:01 -0800, Caolán McNamara > wrote: > >> On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 01:16 +0000, Wols Lists wrote: >>> Note that I'm not used to bullets etc BUT. In WordPerfect when you >>> select text and form

Re: [Libreoffice] format inspector (Was : Re: sw: numbering misbehaviour)

On 22/12/10 22:02, Cor Nouws wrote: > I do not so much believe in the old WP-style of 'reveal formatting' > since I know OOo. > As a style addict, and knowing where to find Ctrl-M, it's easy to > tackle most... > Said that, indeed a (new style) pop-up to show > - para style > - char. style > - d

Re: [Libreoffice] format inspector (Was : Re: sw: numbering misbehaviour)

On 23/12/10 00:07, Philipp Weissenbacher wrote: > May I point you to the crazy idea "Add WordPerfect features like > RevealCodes and HiddenText" [1] Actually, it was me that added that to the wiki page :-) > Also see the therein referenced OOo bug. It's been requested in 2002 > and always dismiss

Re: [Libreoffice] Suggestions

On 23/12/10 23:44, Olivier Hallot wrote: > Hi > > Em 23-12-2010 18:36, Michel Basilieres escreveu: >> Hi >> >> There are two big areas which I feel need to be addressed - although I'm >> sure I'm not the only one to mention them. First, and most important, MS >> Office compatibility. Frankly, in OO

Re: [Libreoffice] Better wording for 'Update links' question

On 22/12/10 22:39, Christoph Noack wrote: >>> Would it be possible to have the prompt remain as it is, with a "Help" >>> > > or "More" button that leads to some expanded explanation? > Given the fact that the "More" button might only show some few lines of > text - what does that additional click

Re: [Libreoffice] format inspector (Was : Re: sw: numbering misbehaviour)

On 28/12/10 12:54, Philipp Weissenbacher wrote: >> But I didn't know about that OOo bug. I'll need to learn styles, but yes, >> > *me* learning styles is totally useless when it's *someone* *else* who's >> > messed up *their* document (and expects me to fix it for them). > I think that's *exactly*

Re: [Libreoffice] Request for review & push to libreoffice-3-3

On 29/12/10 17:46, Rene Engelhard wrote: > English is de facto a thing everyone should know, even more so if > they are going to read the license. (And I would even > argue the preamble of the license belongs to the license itself, > and thus shouldn't be translated anyways). Actually, as a nativ

Re: [Libreoffice] Formula cursor : bug or feature ?

On 29/12/10 19:06, Jonas Finnemann Jensen wrote: > Hi Regina, > >> > It is only difficult for people, who do not get a starting instruction. > True... I would assume that most users are not given an introduction course... > In most schools students are given an introduction to MS Word and MathType.

Re: [Libreoffice] [UX] Formula cursor proposals

On 04/01/11 23:43, Christoph Noack wrote: > The main issue is, that we do have two different input methods (one > being WYSIWYG, the other one being the formula syntax) that have to be > synced somehow. The content itself isn't the main problem, but things > like cursor position and selection. We c

Re: [Libreoffice] Bug triaging - bugs in OOo code base

On 07/01/11 18:09, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > Hi, > A question to the developers, which will inevitably become more > important as things push on with LibO and the code base starts to separate : > > - what is the current approach, with regard to bug triaging, to bugs > caused by the OOo code base

  1   2   3   4   >