You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> on 2015/10/23 13:50:25 UTC
[VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is
now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making
this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
assistance and guidance.
I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are
surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very
long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final
approval phase.
So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
[ ] +1 Approve
[ ] 0 Abstain
[ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 10/23/2015 04:50 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it
> is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making
> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
> assistance and guidance.
>
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are
> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the
> very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the
> final approval phase.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
+1 Approve
Tested on CentOS 6.7 32-bit Linux. Re-verified fixed issues and my
own docs.
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
“The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.”
--Lao Tzu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
[+1] +1 Approve
Installed OK on Xubuntu 15.10.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
On 23.10.2015 13:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
+1 Approve
de-deb 32 bit
Regards
Michael
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by "O.Felka" <ol...@gmx.de>.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
[ X ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is
> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. ...
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. ...
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
VOTE has concluded, even though of course more feedback is always
welcome in case someone could not give feedback during these 3.5 days.
The OpenOffice community and PMC voted in favor of releasing 4.1.2-RC3
(r1709696) as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2, with 10 "+1 Approve" votes (7
from the PMC), 2 "0 Abstain" votes (2 from the PMC) and no "-1
Disapprove" votes.
Tally follows.
imacat +1
jsc +1
kschenk +1
marcus +1
mechtilde +1
mikeadvo +1
pescetti +1
damjan 0
regina 0
Rory O'Farrell +1
Jose R R +1
Olaf Felka +1
The release is still a few days away due to the needed preparations.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
+1 Approve
Andrea Pescetti 於 2015年10月26日 08:06 寫道:
> On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
>> [ ] +1 Approve
>> [ ] 0 Abstain
>> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
> +1 Approve
>
> Verified signatures, checksums, licenses, built from scratch on Linux,
> tested Italian localization, tested bugfixes and ordinary usage. No
> blockers found.
>
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://www.wofoss.org/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
+1 Approve
Verified signatures, checksums, licenses, built from scratch on Linux,
tested Italian localization, tested bugfixes and ordinary usage. No
blockers found.
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
[+1] Approve
De-Debs 64 bit tested
Am 23.10.2015 um 13:50 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it
> is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ and the
> reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making this
> available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
> assistance and guidance.
>
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum
> 72 hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions
> are surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that
> the very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening
> the final approval phase.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice
> 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with
> explanation
>
> Regards, Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
- --
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## Key-ID 0x141AAD7F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=7Azq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 10/25/2015 04:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> Ok, I am changing my vote to:
>> [0] Abstain
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
>> I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in
>> previous
>> releases, it shouldn't stop this release. ...
>> since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may
>> not
>> apply?
>
> If this had been caught early in the process, we would still have
> fixed in RC3 since it is trivial to do so. At this point, I opened
> an issue
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605
> so that we ensure that this doesn't happen again.
>
>> Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
>> doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu
>> either, as
>> they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since
>> most people
>> don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from
>> source, and of
>> those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can
>> document the
>> workaround, I guess it's ok.
>
> Thanks, issue and workaround noted in
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2+Release+Notes
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Just a short FYI. I got curious about this especially in light of
the fact that the Linux-32 SNAPSHOT has been non-functioning for
about a month and I hadn't noticed that. I downloaded the tarball
and built on my CentOS 6.7 32 bit setup and all is well. I should
have done this to begin with I guess. :/ The output from the last
good Linux-32 SNAPSHOT build (Sept. 21) can be found at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-snapshot
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
“The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.”
--Lao Tzu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Ok, I am changing my vote to:
> [0] Abstain
Thanks for your understanding.
> I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous
> releases, it shouldn't stop this release. ...
> since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not
> apply?
If this had been caught early in the process, we would still have fixed
in RC3 since it is trivial to do so. At this point, I opened an issue
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605
so that we ensure that this doesn't happen again.
> Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
> doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as
> they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people
> don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of
> those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the
> workaround, I guess it's ok.
Thanks, issue and workaround noted in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2+Release+Notes
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
I don't see the "...Env.Set.sh" file as code file and therefore the
rules don't apply here. But to be super-sure just delete the generated
file(s) from the source tar balls and rebuild only these new.
And +1 for extending the release notes with the other issues that affect
the binaries.
Marcus
Am 10/25/2015 01:12 PM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Ok, I am changing my vote to:
> [0] Abstain
>
> See below for details.
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>
>>> [-1] Disapprove
>>>
>>
>> That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0,
>> since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do
>> not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what
>> we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was).
>>
>> The deal breakers:
>>> 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set
>>> and
>>> main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're
>>> not
>>> in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause
>>> unapproved license errors in the RAT report.
>>>
>>
>> This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated
>> file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will
>> get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our
>> tagged snapshot at
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while
>> it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic
>> (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this
>> affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files
>> are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the
>> binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit,
>> since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file).
>>
>>
> I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous
> releases, it shouldn't stop this release.
>
> Apache release policy may require those files to be removed or copyright
> notices added because "Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF
> License text" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license) and "Every
> ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This requirement is of
> utmost importance and an audit should be performed before any full release
> is created. In particular, every artifact distributed must contain only
> appropriately licensed code" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). But
> since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not
> apply?
>
>
>> 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and
>>> physical hardware (details later).
>>>
>>
>> We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline",
>> the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still
>> maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on
>> virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of
>> other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent
>> versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the
>> platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below).
>>
>>
> Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
> doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as
> they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people
> don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of
> those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the
> workaround, I guess it's ok.
>
> None of the below should stop the release; I was just commenting generally
> and explaining why some tests weren't done.
>
>
>> Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code
>>> quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are:
>> - RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat
>> - Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link
>> provided by Dennis
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=170870&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&v1=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B
>> will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a
>> more readable version of it.
>> - Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required
>> to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not
>> important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for
>> trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work.
>>
>> Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported
>>> from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break
>>>
>>
>> This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is closer
>> to 4.1.1 than to trunk: we can't backport all the nice things we have on
>> trunk. In many situations, 4.1.2 is an improvement to 4.1.1, and also in
>> this respect 4.1.2 is no worse than 4.1.1.
>>
>> ================
>>> Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit
>>> ================
>>> The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used.
>>> The source reproducibly fails to build (on both VMs and physical hardware)
>>> in main/svl with this error I reported on the dev list months ago
>>>
>>
>> This seems the typical situation where we would add a comment in the
>> "known issues" section of the Release Notes saying what to expect, and how
>> to fix it. A similar situation is the Java 8 compatibility when building
>> the SDK. In both cases we provide something that people can build on a
>> variety of easily available systems; and we refer to the Release Notes for
>> less common cases.
>>
>> All these fail on trunk as well, and trunk has 15 additional fvt test
>>> failures and several errors not present in 4.1.2 :-(.
>>>
>>
>> OK, then I recommend that focus in on trunk for tests. We can't backport
>> everything and we have to live with the fact that 4.1.2 will be exactly
>> like 4.1.1 in some respect. For sure, it is no worse than 4.1.1.
>>
>> Otherwise thank you everyone for this RC, and hopefully the next one will
>>> be released.
>>>
>>
>> I hope we will not need a next one! I'm available, as said, to discuss
>> recreating the source archive and removing the two "temporary" files that
>> were archived and that are not in SVN. I'll open a thread for this as soon
>> as I have thoroughly checked it.
>>
>> The rest of your comments can probably be addressed in Release Notes or
>> (in the case of tests) on trunk since those improvements are out of scope
>> for 4.1.2. I don't see any of them as regressions or as blocking 4.1.2.
>>
>> Thank you for a terrific, very detailed, review. Even though we won't be
>> able to accommodate all of it into 4.1.2, nothing of it will be wasted. For
>> sure, you provided plenty of good information to add to the Release Notes,
>> so you get credit for helping me improve the Release Notes too!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
Ok, I am changing my vote to:
[0] Abstain
See below for details.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
>> [-1] Disapprove
>>
>
> That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0,
> since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do
> not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what
> we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was).
>
> The deal breakers:
>> 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set
>> and
>> main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're
>> not
>> in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause
>> unapproved license errors in the RAT report.
>>
>
> This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated
> file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will
> get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our
> tagged snapshot at
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while
> it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic
> (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this
> affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files
> are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the
> binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit,
> since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file).
>
>
I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous
releases, it shouldn't stop this release.
Apache release policy may require those files to be removed or copyright
notices added because "Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF
License text" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license) and "Every
ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This requirement is of
utmost importance and an audit should be performed before any full release
is created. In particular, every artifact distributed must contain only
appropriately licensed code" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). But
since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not
apply?
> 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and
>> physical hardware (details later).
>>
>
> We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline",
> the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still
> maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on
> virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of
> other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent
> versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the
> platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below).
>
>
Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as
they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people
don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of
those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the
workaround, I guess it's ok.
None of the below should stop the release; I was just commenting generally
and explaining why some tests weren't done.
> Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code
>> quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release.
>>
>
> Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are:
> - RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat
> - Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link
> provided by Dennis
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=170870&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&v1=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B
> will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a
> more readable version of it.
> - Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required
> to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not
> important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for
> trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work.
>
> Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported
>> from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break
>>
>
> This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is closer
> to 4.1.1 than to trunk: we can't backport all the nice things we have on
> trunk. In many situations, 4.1.2 is an improvement to 4.1.1, and also in
> this respect 4.1.2 is no worse than 4.1.1.
>
> ================
>> Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit
>> ================
>> The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used.
>> The source reproducibly fails to build (on both VMs and physical hardware)
>> in main/svl with this error I reported on the dev list months ago
>>
>
> This seems the typical situation where we would add a comment in the
> "known issues" section of the Release Notes saying what to expect, and how
> to fix it. A similar situation is the Java 8 compatibility when building
> the SDK. In both cases we provide something that people can build on a
> variety of easily available systems; and we refer to the Release Notes for
> less common cases.
>
> All these fail on trunk as well, and trunk has 15 additional fvt test
>> failures and several errors not present in 4.1.2 :-(.
>>
>
> OK, then I recommend that focus in on trunk for tests. We can't backport
> everything and we have to live with the fact that 4.1.2 will be exactly
> like 4.1.1 in some respect. For sure, it is no worse than 4.1.1.
>
> Otherwise thank you everyone for this RC, and hopefully the next one will
>> be released.
>>
>
> I hope we will not need a next one! I'm available, as said, to discuss
> recreating the source archive and removing the two "temporary" files that
> were archived and that are not in SVN. I'll open a thread for this as soon
> as I have thoroughly checked it.
>
> The rest of your comments can probably be addressed in Release Notes or
> (in the case of tests) on trunk since those improvements are out of scope
> for 4.1.2. I don't see any of them as regressions or as blocking 4.1.2.
>
> Thank you for a terrific, very detailed, review. Even though we won't be
> able to accommodate all of it into 4.1.2, nothing of it will be wasted. For
> sure, you provided plenty of good information to add to the Release Notes,
> so you get credit for helping me improve the Release Notes too!
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Regards
Damjan
[DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> [-1] Disapprove
That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a
0, since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean,
we do not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree
that what we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was).
> The deal breakers:
> 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set and
> main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're not
> in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause
> unapproved license errors in the RAT report.
This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated
file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you
will get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not
in our tagged snapshot at
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while
it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply
cosmetic (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those
files; this affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change
since those files are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has
zero effect on the binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not
even require a commit, since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz
file).
> 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and
> physical hardware (details later).
We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of
"baseline", the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5
(a still maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our
binaries can run on virtually all distributions); build works there.
There are hundreds of other distributions: with the new bugfixes,
OpenOffice will build on recent versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit).
Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the platforms where it is fine to
describe how to fix the build (more below).
> Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code
> quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release.
Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are:
- RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat
- Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link
provided by Dennis
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=170870&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&v1=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B
will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a
more readable version of it.
- Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are
required to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are
not important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the
process for trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work.
> Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported
> from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break
This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is
closer to 4.1.1 than to trunk: we can't backport all the nice things we
have on trunk. In many situations, 4.1.2 is an improvement to 4.1.1, and
also in this respect 4.1.2 is no worse than 4.1.1.
> ================
> Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit
> ================
> The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used.
> The source reproducibly fails to build (on both VMs and physical hardware)
> in main/svl with this error I reported on the dev list months ago
This seems the typical situation where we would add a comment in the
"known issues" section of the Release Notes saying what to expect, and
how to fix it. A similar situation is the Java 8 compatibility when
building the SDK. In both cases we provide something that people can
build on a variety of easily available systems; and we refer to the
Release Notes for less common cases.
> All these fail on trunk as well, and trunk has 15 additional fvt test
> failures and several errors not present in 4.1.2 :-(.
OK, then I recommend that focus in on trunk for tests. We can't backport
everything and we have to live with the fact that 4.1.2 will be exactly
like 4.1.1 in some respect. For sure, it is no worse than 4.1.1.
> Otherwise thank you everyone for this RC, and hopefully the next one will
> be released.
I hope we will not need a next one! I'm available, as said, to discuss
recreating the source archive and removing the two "temporary" files
that were archived and that are not in SVN. I'll open a thread for this
as soon as I have thoroughly checked it.
The rest of your comments can probably be addressed in Release Notes or
(in the case of tests) on trunk since those improvements are out of
scope for 4.1.2. I don't see any of them as regressions or as blocking
4.1.2.
Thank you for a terrific, very detailed, review. Even though we won't be
able to accommodate all of it into 4.1.2, nothing of it will be wasted.
For sure, you provided plenty of good information to add to the Release
Notes, so you get credit for helping me improve the Release Notes too!
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
[-1] Disapprove
The deal breakers:
1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set and
main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're not
in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause
unapproved license errors in the RAT report.
2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and
physical hardware (details later).
Otherwise:
Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code
quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release.
Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported
from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break the
build if --with-system-cppunit were to be used, so unit tests can't be
tested. I did run the bvt and fvt tests. Since it's badly documented, you
first "source LinuxX86Env.Set.sh" (or your equivalent) and then run the
tests in the test/ subdirectory with:
ant -Dtest.args="-tp bvt"
ant -Dtest.args="-tp fvt"
with -Dopenoffice.home=/path/to/AOO added if you do what I did, which is
ran the more up-to-date tests from trunk against 4.1.2. The bvt tests take
about 10 minutes, the fvt tests 1 hour.
================
Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit
================
The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used.
The source reproducibly fails to build (on both VMs and physical hardware)
in main/svl with this error I reported on the dev list months ago, which
can be worked around by copying and pasting the command that fails and
running it manually with "-lc" appended (as the missing __stack_chk_fail
symbol is present in libc, but the linker doesn't search there for some
reason):
--snip--
[ build LNK ] Library/passwordcontainer.uno.so
R=/home/user/aoo-4.1.2 && S=$R/main && O=$S/solver/412/unxlngi6 &&
W=$O/workdir && mkdir -p $W/LinkTarget/Library/ && g++ -shared
-Wl,-z,noexecstack '-Wl,-rpath,$ORIGIN:$ORIGIN/../ure-link/lib'
'-Wl,-rpath-link,$O/lib' -Wl,-rpath-link,/lib:/usr/lib -Wl,-z,combreloc
-Wl,-z,defs -L$S/solenv/unxlngi6/lib -L$O/lib -L$S/solenv/unxlngi6/lib
-L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/lib
-L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/jre/lib/i386
-L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/jre/lib/i386/client
-L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/jre/lib/i386/native_threads
-L/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu -Wl,--hash-style=both
-Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-new -Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-typeinfo
-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions
$W/CxxObject/svl/source/passwordcontainer/passwordcontainer.o
$W/CxxObject/svl/source/passwordcontainer/syscreds.o -luno_cppu
-luno_cppuhelpergcc3 -luno_sal -lstdc++ -lucbhelper4gcc3 -lutl
-Wl,--start-group -Wl,--end-group -o $W/LinkTarget/Library/
passwordcontainer.uno.so
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc_nonshared.a(stack_chk_fail_local.oS): In
function `__stack_chk_fail_local':
(.text+0x10): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make: ***
[/home/user/aoo-4.1.2/main/solver/412/unxlngi6/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/
passwordcontainer.uno.so] Error 1
dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all'
1 module(s):
svl
need(s) to be rebuilt
--snip--
The test results:
5 bvt tests out of 51 total get errors in 4.1.2:
bvt.gui.ContinuePoint initializationError Test class should have exactly
one public constructor
bvt.gui.ContinuePoint initializationError No runnable methods
bvt.gui.FileExport testSaveAs String index out of range: -1
bvt.gui.TestType initializationError Test class should have exactly one
public zero-argument constructor
bvt.gui.TestType initializationError No runnable methods
All of these also fail on trunk. The bvt.gui.ContinuePoint and
bvt.gui.TestType classes are not tests, so they shouldn't be getting tested
in the first place. The bvt.gu.FileExport class contains mistakes like
using hardcoded slashes and backslashes instead of
java.io.File.separatorChar, fails because it constructs a path badly, and
is looking for a samples directory that doesn't exist. Trunk has 4
additional failures not present in 4.1.2.
12 fvt tests out of 858 total fail in 4.1.2:
fvt.gui.sc.validity.ValidityDialogSetting testAllowDateNotBetween
expected:<[12/31/07]> but was:<[]>
fvt.gui.sc.validity.ValidityDialogSetting testAllowTimeBetween
expected:<[09:00:00 PM]> but was:<[21:00:00]>
fvt.gui.sc.validity.ValidityDialogSetting testAllowTimeGreaterThan
expected:<07:30:00[ AM]> but was:<07:30:00[]>
fvt.gui.sw.table.TableGeneral testTableBorderLineStyle expected:<0.50 ["]>
but was:<0.50 [cm]>
fvt.gui.sw.table.TableGeneral testTableRowHeight expected:<0.50 ["]> but
was:<0.50 [cm]>
fvt.gui.sw.table.TableGeneral testTableColumnWidth expected:<2.00 ["]> but
was:<2.00 [cm]>
fvt.uno.sc.chart.ChartLegend testLegendPosition[0] Incorrect chart legend
position X got in .ods file. expected:<14009.0> but was:<14007.0>
fvt.uno.sc.chart.ChartLegend testLegendPosition[2] Incorrect chart legend
position X got in .ods file. expected:<9470.0> but was:<9468.0>
fvt.uno.sw.puretext.CharacterLocale testCharacterLocaleSetting assert
character language expected:<[US]> but was:<[ZA]>
fvt.uno.sd.file.CheckFileProperties testGeneralCreationDate CreationDate
should be the same as set
fvt.uno.sd.file.CheckFileProperties testGeneralEditingDuration Totally
editing time should be 60 expected:<60> but was:<61>
fvt.uno.sd.shape.ShapeProperties testShapeRotation RotateAngle is not 2500
expected: java.lang.Long<2500> but was: java.lang.Integer<2500>
All these fail on trunk as well, and trunk has 15 additional fvt test
failures and several errors not present in 4.1.2 :-(.
===================
Windows XP SP3, 32 bit
===================
The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used.
With bvt tests, I get these 3 failures in addition to the 5 errors on Linux:
bvt.gui.FileTypeTest testSaveNewODP The typed text is saved!
expected:<[@AOO]> but was:<[]>
bvt.gui.FileTypeTest testSaveNewOTP The typed text is saved!
expected:<[@AOO]> but was:<[]>
bvt.gui.FileTypeTest testSaveNewPOT The typed text is saved!
expected:<[@AOO]> but was:<[]>
I think those tests are unreliable on Windows, as testSaveNewSXI and
testSaveNewSTI fail too when I run bvt.gui.FileTypeTest by itself.
With fvt tests, I get 3 errors and 3 failures, only 1 being common with
Linux:
fvt.gui.sc.sort.SortDialogSetting testSortOptionsIncludeFormats Timeout to
execute the dispatch!
fvt.gui.sd.headerandfooter.DocumentWithHeaderFooter
testOpenAOO34WithHeaderFooter Timeout to execute the dispatch!
fvt.gui.sd.headerandfooter.DocumentWithHeaderFooter
testOpenPPTWithHeaderFooter Timeout to execute the dispatch!
fvt.gui.sd.shape.ShapeTypes testCalloutShapes expected:<3> but was:<1>
fvt.gui.sd.shape.ShapeTypes testStarsShapes expected:<3> but was:<1>
fvt.uno.sd.shape.ShapeProperties testShapeRotation RotateAngle is not 2500
expected: java.lang.Long<2500> but was: java.lang.Integer<2500>
Wasn't able to compare 4.1.2's test results with trunk's: Windows is the
slowest and most problematic platform to build AOO on.
================
FreeBSD 10.2 64 bit
================
No binary package provided.
Test wise, I had hoped #126586 was the only issue with the tests on
FreeBSD, but it isn't, not by a long way :-(. The fvt.uno.db.DBAccess test
deadlocks AOO, freezing the UI so badly it needs to be killed, on both
trunk and 4.1.2. Every test that doesn't "discard()" or forcefully close
the last remaining document or dialog, will stay open, causing all
subsequent tests to fail with errors. I even began committing patches like
r1707970 to force-close the last dialog, before I realized this isn't
necessary on other platforms! FreeBSD thus couldn't be tested.
Otherwise thank you everyone for this RC, and hopefully the next one will
be released.
Damjan
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
wrote:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is now
> time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making this
> available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their assistance
> and guidance.
>
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are surely
> possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very long testing
> phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final approval phase.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Jose R R <jo...@metztli.com>.
Niltze, all!
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Regina Henschel
<rb...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>
>> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>
>>> [x] 0 Abstain
>>>
>>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the
>>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a
>>> bug in the source.
>>
>>
>> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I
>> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac
>> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest
>> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always
>> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were
>> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan)
>>
>> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to
>> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I
>> used to build the binaries.
>
>
> If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on Windows,
> because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no one found the
> time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not releasing
> binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful build of a src
> tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
>
Earlier, under limited time, I was unsuccessful in building ApacheOO
from source in this GNU/Linux Debian Unstable environment. I tried
several Java versions, including Zulu from Azul Systems.
On the other hand, simply because I was not able to build it in my
environment, it does not imply that ApacheOO 4.1.2-RC3 is not ready to
become OpenOffice 4.1.2. I installed it into Debian Unstable and it
performs beautifully.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSPi_4XVEAEvCHg.png:large
Thank you to whoever built the binary!
[X] +1 Approve RC3 to become ApacheOO 4.1.2
--
Jose R R
http://metztli.it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Dennis,
Dennis E. Hamilton schrieb:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:04
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
>>
>> On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>
>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful.
>> Besides
>>>> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever
>> had)
>>>> the src package is fine.
>>>>
>>>> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but
>> maybe
>>>> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip.
>>>
>>> I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and
>> unzipped
>>> it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to
>>>
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_b
>> y_step#Windows_7
>>> not to use Windows tools for unpacking.
>>
>> good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is
>> strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to
>> use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would
>> drop the zip src release in the future.
> [orcmid]
>
> Regina, can you explain what Windows tool you mean?
>
> Do you mean not using the default way that Windows will open/extract a .zip file?
Yes. I remember that for Windows own unpack tool problems have been
reported at OOo-times.
>
> Do you mean that a Zip utility like WinZip or 7Zip should not be used?
Yes. I had used 7Zip and had got these strange access problems.
>
> I assume the change you mean is where you use the Cygwin bash session and use tar to unpack the tar.bz2 source. Is that correct?
Yes. I have now unpacked it inside Cygwin, using "tar xvzf
apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz"
>
> (Or has the change not been pushed yet?)
I have put my comment into section "Source release" right after the
command example on the Wiki page
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7.
I don't know, whether unpacking the zip-source inside Cygwin would work.
As both Jürgen and me could build it with the "tar.gz" source, I agree
with Jürgen, that next time we should not provide a zip-source at all.
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:04
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
>
> On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote:
> > Hi Jürgen,
> >
> > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> >>
> >> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful.
> Besides
> >> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever
> had)
> >> the src package is fine.
> >>
> >> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but
> maybe
> >> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip.
> >
> > I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and
> unzipped
> > it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to
> >
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_b
> y_step#Windows_7
> > not to use Windows tools for unpacking.
>
> good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is
> strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to
> use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would
> drop the zip src release in the future.
[orcmid]
Regina, can you explain what Windows tool you mean?
Do you mean not using the default way that Windows will open/extract a .zip file?
Do you mean that a Zip utility like WinZip or 7Zip should not be used?
I assume the change you mean is where you use the Cygwin bash session and use tar to unpack the tar.bz2 source. Is that correct?
(Or has the change not been pushed yet?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>
>> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides
>> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had)
>> the src package is fine.
>>
>> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe
>> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip.
>
> I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and unzipped
> it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7
> not to use Windows tools for unpacking.
good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is
strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to
use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would
drop the zip src release in the future.
Juergen
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Jürgen,
Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>
> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides
> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had)
> the src package is fine.
>
> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe
> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip.
I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and unzipped
it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7
not to use Windows tools for unpacking.
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 26/10/15 15:05, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 26/10/15 12:17, Regina Henschel wrote:
>> Hi Jürgen,
>>
>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>> [x] 0 Abstain
>>>>
>>>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the
>>>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a
>>>> bug in the source.
>>>
>>> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I
>>> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac
>>> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest
>>> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always
>>> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were
>>> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan)
>>>
>>> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to
>>> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I
>>> used to build the binaries.
>>
>> If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on
>> Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no
>> one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not
>> releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful
>> build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience.
>>
>
> Regina, I used the tar.gz tarball and started a Windows build,
> everything looks good so fr and it is still building. stlport for
> example is finished, I don#t remeber what exactly your problems were.
>
> Herbert mentioned that he remembered problems with the zip file and
> cygwin and permissions. Well I don't know and as mentioned I used the
> tar.gz because it was smaller.
>
> I will let you know when the build is finished.
checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides
the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had)
the src package is fine.
@Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe
you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 26/10/15 12:17, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>> [x] 0 Abstain
>>>
>>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the
>>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a
>>> bug in the source.
>>
>> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I
>> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac
>> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest
>> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always
>> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were
>> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan)
>>
>> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to
>> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I
>> used to build the binaries.
>
> If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on
> Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no
> one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not
> releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful
> build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience.
>
Regina, I used the tar.gz tarball and started a Windows build,
everything looks good so fr and it is still building. stlport for
example is finished, I don#t remeber what exactly your problems were.
Herbert mentioned that he remembered problems with the zip file and
cygwin and permissions. Well I don't know and as mentioned I used the
tar.gz because it was smaller.
I will let you know when the build is finished.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Jürgen,
Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote:
>> [x] 0 Abstain
>>
>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the
>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a
>> bug in the source.
>
> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I
> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac
> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest
> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always
> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were
> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan)
>
> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to
> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I
> used to build the binaries.
If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on
Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no
one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not
releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful
build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience.
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote:
> [x] 0 Abstain
>
> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the
> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a
> bug in the source.
Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I
successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac
and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest
tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always
in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were
probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan)
Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to
do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I
used to build the binaries.
Juergen
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
> Andrea Pescetti schrieb:
>> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is
>> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>>
>> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
>> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making
>> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
>> assistance and guidance.
>>
>> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
>> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are
>> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very
>> long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final
>> approval phase.
>>
>> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
>> [ ] +1 Approve
>> [ ] 0 Abstain
>> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
[x] 0 Abstain
It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the
delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a
bug in the source.
Kind regards
Regina
Andrea Pescetti schrieb:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is
> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making
> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
> assistance and guidance.
>
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are
> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very
> long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final
> approval phase.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
+1
Tested on Windows 8.1 64-Bit
Marcus
Am 10/23/2015 01:50 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is
> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making
> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
> assistance and guidance.
>
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are
> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very
> long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final
> approval phase.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 23/10/15 13:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is
> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making
> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their
> assistance and guidance.
>
> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72
> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are
> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very
> long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final
> approval phase.
>
> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2:
> [ ] +1 Approve
> [ ] 0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
+1 approve, I use it already on my Mac and I have't found anything
critical so far.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org