You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> on 2012/01/01 09:43:12 UTC

[BUG] AOO cannot be installed

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey,

you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.

But:

What should a user do?

There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
testing.

The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.

I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.

Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?

So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.

In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
to test from "official" build maschines.

Kind Regards

Mechtilde

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8AHKAACgkQucZfh1OziSt+mwCgtRQh6KZgzlylXCu17u3m6FIe
nnAAoIqFOhMoH80TR2+fbhMBW9VXnUQA
=TxdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.

On 1/1/2012 12:43 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hey,
>
> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>
> But:
>
> What should a user do?
>
> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> testing.
>
> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>
> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>
> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>
> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>
> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> to test from "official" build maschines.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Mechtilde
The original idea for the buildbot was to make sure the build is not 
broken - e.g. by someone changing a bunch of headers.
Now as the packages are being uploaded, it seems the scope for the 
nightlies is expanding,to building a useable binary.
I think the intent is to eventually build as many platforms as is 
feasible.  Certainly rpm and deb for linux 32, as well as Windows, Mac, 
and Solaris are all in that mix.

A.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8AHKAACgkQucZfh1OziSt+mwCgtRQh6KZgzlylXCu17u3m6FIe
> nnAAoIqFOhMoH80TR2+fbhMBW9VXnUQA
> =TxdM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 19:41 +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Hi Dave
> 
> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She 
> is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual 
> tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
> 
> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this 
> builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so 
> it's right to bring it on the list.
> 
> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it 
> self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same 
> mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with 
> Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision.
> 
> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the 
> release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors 
> computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a 
> Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task*
> 
> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a 
> serios problem.

+1

and just to confirm - I'm using Ariels builds because they work, and I
have not been able to say the same about the builds from the buildbot so
far.

> 
> Greetings Raphael
> Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> > Hi Mechtilde,
> >
> > There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
> >
> > Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
> >
> > Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
> >
> > Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
> >
> > Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
> >
> > I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Hello Jürgen,
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >>> Hi Mechtilde,
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> >>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> >>>
> >>> But:
> >>>
> >>> What should a user do?
> >>>
> >>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> >>> testing.
> >>>
> >>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> >>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> >>>
> >>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> >>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
> >>>
> >>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> >>>
> >>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> >>> to test from "official" build maschines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
> >>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
> >>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> >> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> >> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
> >>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
> >>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> >> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
> >> it before a release.
> >>
> >>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
> >>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
> >>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
> >>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
> >>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> >> It depends on the based distribution.
> >>
> >> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
> >> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> >>
> >>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
> >>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
> >>>> purposes.
> >> That's what I ask for.
> >>
> >>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
> >>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
> >>>> over time.
> >> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
> >>
> >> Thats my question
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >>
> >> Mechtilde
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards
> >>>
> >>> Mechtilde
> >>>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >>
> >> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
> >> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
> >> =ulAm
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> 
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.

Ariel's unofficial developer builds are now linked to from the podling site.

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/developer-faqs.html#where_can_i_download_developer_builds

Rob setup this FAQ earlier today and when Ariel posted just now I added the link to her page.

Good luck,

Certainly the goal for the nightly builds is to do this on a nightly basis ... but that is critical work in progress.

Go builders! Go testers!

Regards,
Dave

On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Mechtilde wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello Dave,
> 
> 
> Am 02.01.2012 19:59, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> 
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Dave
>>> 
>>> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
>> 
>> I didn't mean to imply that she is a newbie. She is likely very busy and may have missed some of the threads. I'm only trying to point out what I've seen. My details are not complete as I only glance at the build emails.
>> 
>>> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list.
>>> 
>>> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision.
>>> 
>>> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task*
>> 
>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
> 
> What should I see here?
> 
> That you want to setup Bildbots for Windows Mac and Solaris?
> 
>> 
>> Andrew has been working on the ubuntu build since mid-November.
>> 
>> So the project misses builds and the project has been working on the issue.
> 
> Why do you publish nighbtly builds although you know that they doesn't
> work since 6 weeks as you wrote yourself (Mid of November 2011)
> 
> And where can I read whether this issue is fixed or not?
> 
> To update an Ubuntu or a Debian System I only need one day in the worst
> case but never more.
> 
>> 
>>> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem.
>> 
>> Sure and that is to be fixed by engaging in the buildbot development process. Andrew Rist and Gavin are the people to engage.
> 
> After we have a first working build on Windows and Linux 32 bit and 64
> bit we can discuss about a release plan but no day earlier.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Greetings Raphael
>>> Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>> 
>>>> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>>>> 
>>>> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>>>> 
>>>> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>>>> 
>>>> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>>>> 
>>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>>>> 
>> Hello Jürgen,
>> 
>> 
>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>>>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>>>>>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What should a user do?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>>>>>>> testing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>>>>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>>>>>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>>>>>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>>>>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>>>>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>>>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>>>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>> it before a release.
>> 
>>>>>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>>>>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>>>>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>>>>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>>>>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>> It depends on the based distribution.
>> 
>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>> 
>>>>>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>>>>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>>>>>>> purposes.
>> That's what I ask for.
>> 
>>>>>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>>>>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>>>>>>> over time.
>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>> 
>> Thats my question
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> Mechtilde
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8CBMkACgkQucZfh1OziStAKACfWr2NkyruWb6+H611mdNKFaCF
> PsoAoIuwPsuYmB78wzxV6K5tE0jKR2Eo
> =MMMI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de>.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Dave,


Am 02.01.2012 19:59, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> 
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dave
>>
>> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that she is a newbie. She is likely very busy and may have missed some of the threads. I'm only trying to point out what I've seen. My details are not complete as I only glance at the build emails.
> 
>> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list.
>>
>> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision.
>>
>> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task*
> 
> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197

What should I see here?

That you want to setup Bildbots for Windows Mac and Solaris?

> 
> Andrew has been working on the ubuntu build since mid-November.
> 
> So the project misses builds and the project has been working on the issue.

Why do you publish nighbtly builds although you know that they doesn't
work since 6 weeks as you wrote yourself (Mid of November 2011)

And where can I read whether this issue is fixed or not?

To update an Ubuntu or a Debian System I only need one day in the worst
case but never more.

> 
>> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem.
> 
> Sure and that is to be fixed by engaging in the buildbot development process. Andrew Rist and Gavin are the people to engage.

After we have a first working build on Windows and Linux 32 bit and 64
bit we can discuss about a release plan but no day earlier.

Kind regards

Mechtilde

> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
>>
>> Greetings Raphael
>> Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>
>>> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>>>
>>> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>>>
>>> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>>>
>>> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>>>
>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>>>
>>> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>>>
> Hello Jürgen,
> 
> 
> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>>>>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What should a user do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>>>>>> testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>>>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>>>>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>>>>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>>>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>>>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> 
> 
> 
>>>>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
> it before a release.
> 
>>>>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>>>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>>>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>>>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>>>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> It depends on the based distribution.
> 
> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> 
>>>>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>>>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>>>>>> purposes.
> That's what I ask for.
> 
>>>>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>>>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>>>>>> over time.
> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
> 
> Thats my question
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
> 
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8CBMkACgkQucZfh1OziStAKACfWr2NkyruWb6+H611mdNKFaCF
PsoAoIuwPsuYmB78wzxV6K5tE0jKR2Eo
=MMMI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.

On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:

> Hi Dave
> 
> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.

I didn't mean to imply that she is a newbie. She is likely very busy and may have missed some of the threads. I'm only trying to point out what I've seen. My details are not complete as I only glance at the build emails.

> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so it's right to bring it on the list.
> 
> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision.
> 
> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task*

Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197

Andrew has been working on the ubuntu build since mid-November.

So the project misses builds and the project has been working on the issue.

> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a serios problem.

Sure and that is to be fixed by engaging in the buildbot development process. Andrew Rist and Gavin are the people to engage.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Greetings Raphael
> Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Hi Mechtilde,
>> 
>> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>> 
>> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>> 
>> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>> 
>> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>> 
>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>> 
>> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> Hello Jürgen,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hey,
>>>> 
>>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>>> 
>>>> But:
>>>> 
>>>> What should a user do?
>>>> 
>>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>>>> testing.
>>>> 
>>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>>> 
>>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>>>> 
>>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>>> 
>>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>>> 
>>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>>> it before a release.
>>> 
>>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>>> It depends on the based distribution.
>>> 
>>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>>> 
>>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>>>> purposes.
>>> That's what I ask for.
>>> 
>>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>>>> over time.
>>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>>> 
>>> Thats my question
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> 
>>> Mechtilde
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> Juergen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>> 
>>>> Mechtilde
>>>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>> 
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>>> =ulAm
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: [BUILD] EPM for building packages - was [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.

On 1/4/12 11:09 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>
> On 1/4/2012 11:44 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>> I am trying to create the buildbots so that there is now magical
>> secret sauce to keep them working.
>> Thus, I am trying to create a 'recipe' for creating the build machine
>> which includes:
>>
>> * vanilla version of an OS (Ubuntu 10.04 as a starting point for
>> buildbots so far)
>> * a set of dependencies (which I am currently creating as a set of
>> apt-get commands for the machine)
>> * a script for running the build (which is translated into the
>> buildbot config file)
>>
>> I practice these on my machine and once they are stable and
>> repeatable, then they are ready for deploy as a buildbot.
>> I am wary of steps that include building and deploying patched
>> software outside of this process.
>>
>> EPM is currently in this category. What is our best solution for EPM?
>>
>> 1. find a dependency that can be repeatably loaded in the dependencies
>> list
>> 2. create a configure option of --with-EPM-path=<URL> and download and
>> build a patched EPM during the build
> like the existing option of --with-epm-url, for instance....
> seriously, I got it now, and I'm implementing this into buildbot.
> I think this needs to be added into the ./configure --help

it is already listed in configure --help.

Juergen


>
> A.
>>
>> I know I have not included the option of prebuilding the patched EPM -
>> this is intentional, as this leads to highly customized and
>> non-reproducable build machines, so I think that is a bad course to
>> follow.
>>
>> thoughts??
>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>> On 1/2/2012 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
>>>> Hi Dave
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years.
>>>> She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled
>>>> manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
>>>>
>>>> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this
>>>> builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem,
>>>> so it's right to bring it on the list.
>>>>
>>>> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it
>>>> self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the
>>>> same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two
>>>> computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you
>>>> use the same revision.
>>>>
>>>> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the
>>>> release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a
>>>> contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux,
>>>> Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a
>>>> *realy urgent task*
>>>>
>>>> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a
>>>> serios problem.
>>> Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been
>>> discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot
>>> ended with a system epm.
>>>
>>> IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only
>>> DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable,
>>> but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer
>>> snapshot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>
>

Re: [BUILD] EPM for building packages - was [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.


On 1/4/2012 11:44 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> I am trying to create the buildbots so that there is now magical 
> secret sauce to keep them working.
> Thus, I am trying to create a 'recipe' for creating the build machine 
> which includes:
>
>  * vanilla version of an OS (Ubuntu 10.04 as a starting point for
>    buildbots so far)
>  * a set of dependencies (which I am currently creating as a set of
>    apt-get commands for the machine)
>  * a script for running the build (which is translated into the
>    buildbot config file)
>
> I practice these on my machine and once they are stable and 
> repeatable, then they are ready for deploy as a buildbot.
> I am wary of steps that include building and deploying patched 
> software outside of this process.
>
> EPM is currently in this category.  What is our best solution for EPM?
>
> 1. find a dependency that can be repeatably loaded in the dependencies
>    list
> 2. create a configure option of --with-EPM-path=<URL> and download and
>    build a patched EPM during the build
like the existing option of --with-epm-url, for instance....
seriously, I got it now, and I'm implementing this into buildbot.
I think this needs to be added into the ./configure --help

A.
>
> I know I have not included the option of prebuilding the patched EPM - 
> this is intentional, as this leads to highly customized and 
> non-reproducable build machines, so I think that is a bad course to 
> follow.
>
> thoughts??
>
> A.
>
>
> On 1/2/2012 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
>>> Hi Dave
>>>
>>> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years.
>>> She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled
>>> manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
>>>
>>> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this
>>> builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem,
>>> so it's right to bring it on the list.
>>>
>>> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it
>>> self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the
>>> same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two
>>> computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you
>>> use the same revision.
>>>
>>> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the
>>> release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a
>>> contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux,
>>> Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a
>>> *realy urgent task*
>>>
>>> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a
>>> serios problem.
>> Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been
>> discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot
>> ended with a system epm.
>>
>> IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only
>> DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable,
>> but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer
>> snapshot.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>

-- 

Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
OracleCorporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847

[BUILD] EPM for building packages - was [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.

I am trying to create the buildbots so that there is now magical secret 
sauce to keep them working.
Thus, I am trying to create a 'recipe' for creating the build machine 
which includes:

  * vanilla version of an OS (Ubuntu 10.04 as a starting point for
    buildbots so far)
  * a set of dependencies (which I am currently creating as a set of
    apt-get commands for the machine)
  * a script for running the build (which is translated into the
    buildbot config file)

I practice these on my machine and once they are stable and repeatable, 
then they are ready for deploy as a buildbot.
I am wary of steps that include building and deploying patched software 
outside of this process.

EPM is currently in this category.  What is our best solution for EPM?

 1. find a dependency that can be repeatably loaded in the dependencies
    list
 2. create a configure option of --with-EPM-path=<URL> and download and
    build a patched EPM during the build

I know I have not included the option of prebuilding the patched EPM - 
this is intentional, as this leads to highly customized and 
non-reproducable build machines, so I think that is a bad course to follow.

thoughts??

A.


On 1/2/2012 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
>> Hi Dave
>>
>> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years.
>> She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled
>> manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
>>
>> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this
>> builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem,
>> so it's right to bring it on the list.
>>
>> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it
>> self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the
>> same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two
>> computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you
>> use the same revision.
>>
>> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the
>> release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a
>> contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux,
>> Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a
>> *realy urgent task*
>>
>> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a
>> serios problem.
> Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been
> discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot
> ended with a system epm.
>
> IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only
> DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable,
> but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer
> snapshot.
>
>
> Regards

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
<ar...@apache.org>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> > Hi Dave
> >
> > Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years.
> > She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled
> > manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
> >
> > I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this
> > builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem,
> > so it's right to bring it on the list.
> >
> > What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it
> > self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the
> > same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two
> > computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you
> > use the same revision.
> >
> > For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the
> > release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a
> > contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux,
> > Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a
> > *realy urgent task*
> >
> > And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a
> > serios problem.
>
> Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been
> discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot
> ended with a system epm.
>
> IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only
> DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable,
> but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer
> snapshot.
>

+1

I'm not sure its worth anyone's time to try to do distro-specific builds.
If we can get out RPM and Deb packaging, that would be great!


>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
 with strange cats."
                                                  -- *Colonial American
proverb*

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +0100, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Hi Dave
> 
> Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years.
> She is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled
> manual tester. So she is not a newbe at all.
> 
> I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this
> builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem,
> so it's right to bring it on the list.
> 
> What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it
> self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the
> same mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two
> computers with Linux, you will have two different builds even you
> use the same revision.
> 
> For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the
> release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a
> contributors computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux,
> Mac realy need a Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a
> *realy urgent task*
> 
> And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a
> serios problem.

Those build are unusable due to the EPM version, a subject that has been
discussed since the epm removal, so I have no idea why the buildboot
ended with a system epm.

IMO the Linux build boot should produce also RPM packages, not only
DEBs. And nightly builds are useful for keeping the code base buildable,
but for testing purposes it would be more useful a weekly developer
snapshot.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.

Hi Dave

Just to clarify. Mechtilde is a contributor since day 0 - 7 years. She 
is one of the moast experienced QA here, and a verry skilled manual 
tester. So she is not a newbe at all.

I build only for mac, for linux i point to the Buildbot too. If this 
builds don't work for a Linux distribution it is a serios problem, so 
it's right to bring it on the list.

What Mechtilde miss, are de frequently snapshots from the project it 
self, not from same contributors. The test build should be from the same 
mashine as the final release. You can build AOO on two computers with 
Linux, you will have two different builds even you use the same revision.

For this reason, test builds has to come from the same mashin as the 
release. For my point of view it's not a good idea to use a contributors 
computer for it. So the main plattform Wendows, Linux, Mac realy need a 
Buildbot, and this is not a "nice to have" it's a *realy urgent task*

And if one of this Buildbot produce unusable builds, then we have a 
serios problem.

Greetings Raphael
Am 02.01.12 17:47, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Hi Mechtilde,
>
> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>
> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>
> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>
> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>
> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>
> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hello Jürgen,
>>
>>
>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> But:
>>>
>>> What should a user do?
>>>
>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>>> testing.
>>>
>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>>
>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>>>
>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>>
>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>>
>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>>
>>>
>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>> it before a release.
>>
>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>> It depends on the based distribution.
>>
>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>>
>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>>> purposes.
>> That's what I ask for.
>>
>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>>> over time.
>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>>
>> Thats my question
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Mechtilde
>>
>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Mechtilde
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>> =ulAm
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>


-- 
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:34 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Mechtilde,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
>> >> > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
>> >>
>> >> The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
>> >>
>> >> > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
>> >
>> > My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
>> > should take precedence for branding purpose.
>> >
>>
>> And why cannot we do both?
>
> We can, of course.
>
> It's a judgment call regarding timing and sequence.
>
> My primary reason for advocating that particular sequence is as an
> attempt to control, finesse if you will, the conversation in the
> extended user community and media.
>
> As Graham pointed out a few times, rightfully, there are certain at
> which is natural interest - this next few weeks I would expect to one of
> those.
>
> I believe that the change to the top level branding on the website,
> particularly if that coincides with an announcement (blog, email, etc)
> as discussed in another thread, will generate a certain level of
> conversation.
>

The number of people who visit the website right now == small

The number of people who will visit the website when we have a 3.4
release == very large

The number of users who will even notice work-in-progress with the
rebranding before 3.4 releases == a fraction of small

The number of users who will be harmed by work work-in-progress with
the rebranding before 3.4 releases == zero

The effort to enable staging of rebranding so it all shows up on the
website for the first time coordinated with the 3.4 release == more
than zero

The effort to include mention of the rebranding along with other
communications about the 3.4 release when it happens == almost zero

Volunteering to help with rebranding communications when the time
comes and to help with rebranding on the web site now == Rob

Volunteering to set up staging for the rebranding so it can be flipped
on with a switch later == ?

Remember, when we get close to the 3.4 release, we're all going to be
very busy with other things, both anticipated and not anticipated.
The stuff that can be done now should be done now.  You don't want to
end load tasks like this.   What is easy to do, and has practically
the same impact, is to delay blog posts, and other far-reaching
announcements of the rebranding until the 3.4 release comes out.

My $0.02

-Rob

> I also feel it worthwhile to maximize that moment of interest by
> waiting, which does not mean not working on and staging, on the
> re-branded launch of the site, if you will, by setting as our trigger
> the ability to change the link on the website for the Developer Snapshot
> build to an actual download of Apache OpenOffice.
>
> In a real sense, I feel, one then has a conversation not only about the
> ephemeral changes of a name but substantive conversations about the
> results of the projects real purpose, to date.
>
> Now, as I said it's a subjective call and I recognize it's just my
> opinion - I won't be hurt if folks as group decide it's not really worth
> the delay.
>
> But again I'm not saying don't start re-branding the web pages and other
> items [1], only that it's staged work for a coordinated roll out event.
>
> //drew
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Presentations
> It would be great if someone grabbed one of these real quick also..
>
>
>> After all, there are volunteers who can
>> update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++
>> code.  So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding
>> comes at the expense of updating the C++ code.
>>
>> > In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
>> > OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
>> > smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
>> > they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
>> > release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
>> > ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
>> > understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
>> > this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
>> > it sounds like.
>> >
>> > I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
>> > details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
>> > signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
>> > as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
>> > up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
>> > break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
>> > concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
>> > Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
>> > full blown new name and branding, not the website.
>> >
>> > just my .02
>> >
>>
>> I'm not hearing an objection to someone doing the inevitable website
>> branding updates now.  It is just that you would prefer yourself to
>> concentrate on the product code?
>>
>> (I'm disregarding for the moment the possibility that you have a
>> opinion on what other volunteers should do.  I'm not sure that is
>> entirely relevant.  The direction of the project in the end is the sum
>> of our individual preferences for what we want to work on at a given
>> time, not what we want others to work on)
>>
>> > //drew
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Dave
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> >>> Hash: SHA1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hello Jürgen,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> >> >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hey,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>> >> >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> But:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> What should a user do?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>> >> >>>> testing.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>> >> >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>> >> >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>> >> >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>> >> >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>> >> >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>> >> >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>> >> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>> >> >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>> >> >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>> >> >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>> >> >>> it before a release.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>> >> >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>> >> >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>> >> >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>> >> >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>> >> >>> It depends on the based distribution.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>> >> >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>> >> >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>> >> >>>>> purposes.
>> >> >>> That's what I ask for.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>> >> >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>> >> >>>>> over time.
>> >> >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thats my question
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Kind Regards
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Mechtilde
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> Juergen
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Kind Regards
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Mechtilde
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> >> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>> >> >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>> >> >>> =ulAm
>> >> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:34 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >> >> Hi Mechtilde,
> >> >>
> >> >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
> >> >>
> >> >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
> >> > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
> >>
> >> The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
> >>
> >> > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
> >
> > My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
> > should take precedence for branding purpose.
> >
> 
> And why cannot we do both?  

We can, of course.

It's a judgment call regarding timing and sequence. 

My primary reason for advocating that particular sequence is as an
attempt to control, finesse if you will, the conversation in the
extended user community and media.

As Graham pointed out a few times, rightfully, there are certain at
which is natural interest - this next few weeks I would expect to one of
those. 

I believe that the change to the top level branding on the website,
particularly if that coincides with an announcement (blog, email, etc)
as discussed in another thread, will generate a certain level of
conversation.

I also feel it worthwhile to maximize that moment of interest by
waiting, which does not mean not working on and staging, on the
re-branded launch of the site, if you will, by setting as our trigger
the ability to change the link on the website for the Developer Snapshot
build to an actual download of Apache OpenOffice. 

In a real sense, I feel, one then has a conversation not only about the
ephemeral changes of a name but substantive conversations about the
results of the projects real purpose, to date.

Now, as I said it's a subjective call and I recognize it's just my
opinion - I won't be hurt if folks as group decide it's not really worth
the delay.

But again I'm not saying don't start re-branding the web pages and other
items [1], only that it's staged work for a coordinated roll out event.

//drew 

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Presentations
It would be great if someone grabbed one of these real quick also..


> After all, there are volunteers who can
> update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++
> code.  So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding
> comes at the expense of updating the C++ code.
> 
> > In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
> > OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
> > smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
> > they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
> >
> > I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
> > release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
> > ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
> > understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
> > this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
> > it sounds like.
> >
> > I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
> > details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
> > signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
> > as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
> > up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
> > break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
> > concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
> > Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
> > full blown new name and branding, not the website.
> >
> > just my .02
> >
> 
> I'm not hearing an objection to someone doing the inevitable website
> branding updates now.  It is just that you would prefer yourself to
> concentrate on the product code?
> 
> (I'm disregarding for the moment the possibility that you have a
> opinion on what other volunteers should do.  I'm not sure that is
> entirely relevant.  The direction of the project in the end is the sum
> of our individual preferences for what we want to work on at a given
> time, not what we want others to work on)
> 
> > //drew
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Dave
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hello Jürgen,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >> >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hey,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> >> >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What should a user do?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> >> >>>> testing.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> >> >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> >> >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> >> >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
> >> >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
> >> >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> >> >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> >> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
> >> >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
> >> >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> >> >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
> >> >>> it before a release.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
> >> >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
> >> >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
> >> >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
> >> >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> >> >>> It depends on the based distribution.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
> >> >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
> >> >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
> >> >>>>> purposes.
> >> >>> That's what I ask for.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
> >> >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
> >> >>>>> over time.
> >> >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thats my question
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Kind Regards
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mechtilde
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> Juergen
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Kind Regards
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Mechtilde
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >> >>>
> >> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
> >> >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
> >> >>> =ulAm
> >> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> >> Hi Mechtilde,
>> >>
>> >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>> >>
>> >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>> >>
>> >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>> >>
>> >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>> >>
>> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>> >>
>> >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
>> > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
>>
>> The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
>>
>> > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
>>
>> I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
>
> My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
> should take precedence for branding purpose.
>

And why cannot we do both?  After all, there are volunteers who can
update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++
code.  So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding
comes at the expense of updating the C++ code.

> In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
> OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
> smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
> they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
>
> I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
> release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
> ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
> understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
> this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
> it sounds like.
>
> I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
> details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
> signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
> as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
> up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
> break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
> concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
> Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
> full blown new name and branding, not the website.
>
> just my .02
>

I'm not hearing an objection to someone doing the inevitable website
branding updates now.  It is just that you would prefer yourself to
concentrate on the product code?

(I'm disregarding for the moment the possibility that you have a
opinion on what other volunteers should do.  I'm not sure that is
entirely relevant.  The direction of the project in the end is the sum
of our individual preferences for what we want to work on at a given
time, not what we want others to work on)

> //drew
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> >
>> > A.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >>> Hash: SHA1
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello Jürgen,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hey,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>> >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What should a user do?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>> >>>> testing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>> >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>> >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>> >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>> >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>> >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>> >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>> >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>> >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>> >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>> >>> it before a release.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>> >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>> >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>> >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>> >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>> >>> It depends on the based distribution.
>> >>>
>> >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>> >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>> >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>> >>>>> purposes.
>> >>> That's what I ask for.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>> >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>> >>>>> over time.
>> >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thats my question
>> >>>
>> >>> Kind Regards
>> >>>
>> >>> Mechtilde
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Juergen
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Kind Regards
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mechtilde
>> >>>>
>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>> >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>> >>> =ulAm
>> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.

See the page- that is properly descriptive so is ok from
my standpoint.  Something similar with a buildbot link
is certainlyreasonable.



----- Original Message -----
> From: drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>
> To: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
> 
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 12:15 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>  Some friendly advice is to be careful how you "promote"
>>  that buildbot link.  The ASF has very strict rules regarding
>>  the promotion of releases versus build artifacts- which
>>  are only supposed to be exposed to fellow developers: see
>> 
>>  http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what
>> 
>> 
>>  HTH
> 
> Thanks - ok, read that.
> 
> For a concrete example the OO.o project has historically had a link from
> the download page to Developer Snapshots:
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/next/index.html
> 
> I've noted a number of the developers on the mailing list here bring up
> the idea of the weekly build - and that is where my thinking was, so
> where I used buildBot, I'd substitute, this Developer Snapshot which I'd
> presume will end up coming from the buildBot..
> 
> //drew
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  > From: drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>
>>  > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>  > Cc: 
>>  > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:09 PM
>>  > Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
>>  > 
>>  > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>  >>  On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>  >> 
>>  >>  > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>  >>  >> Hi Mechtilde,
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow 
> the ML 
>>  > closely they are discussed.
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> Have a look at this: 
> http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO 
> since day 
>>  > one.
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from 
> Apache 
>>  > Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> Please see 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone 
> should blog 
>>  > about it and let people know...
>>  >>  > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work 
> with 
>>  > infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the 
> infrastructure team is 
>>  > a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  
> (right now they 
>>  > are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website 
> and pushed 
>>  > CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
>>  >> 
>>  >>  The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the 
> trigger on the 
>>  > logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
>>  >> 
>>  >>  > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
>>  >> 
>>  >>  I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some 
> of 
>>  > Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
>>  > 
>>  > My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution 
> files,
>>  > should take precedence for branding purpose.
>>  > 
>>  > In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
>>  > OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and 
> work
>>  > smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
>>  > they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
>>  > 
>>  > I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 
> 3.4
>>  > release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl 
> is
>>  > ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if 
> I'm
>>  > understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is 
> that
>>  > this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks 
> most
>>  > it sounds like.
>>  > 
>>  > I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
>>  > details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
>>  > signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it 
> seems
>>  > as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
>>  > up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we 
> don't
>>  > break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
>>  > concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the 
> application.
>>  > Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
>>  > full blown new name and branding, not the website.
>>  > 
>>  > just my .02
>>  > 
>>  > //drew
>>  > 
>>  >> 
>>  >>  Regards,
>>  >>  Dave
>>  >> 
>>  >>  > 
>>  >>  > A.
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> Regards,
>>  >>  >> Dave
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>>  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>  >>  >>> Hash: SHA1
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> Hello Jürgen,
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>  >>  >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, 
>>  > Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> Hey,
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are 
> allowed to 
>>  > distribute
>>  >>  >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> But:
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> What should a user do?
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> There is no "official" binary 
> available which 
>>  > anyone can install for
>>  >>  >>>> testing.
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> The DEB binary from  
>>  > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>  >>  >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit 
> system.
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 
> but nothing 
>>  > happened. As
>>  >>  >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one 
> programm on 
>>  > the buildbot.
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one 
> plattform?
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> So we also need test binaries for these 
> plattforms.
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release 
> stopper* not to 
>>  > have binaries
>>  >>  >>>> to test from "official" build 
> maschines.
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where 
> we have to 
>>  > find a solution. We don't
>>  >>  >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and 
> the 
>>  > release engineers did a lot
>>  >>  >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as 
> many Linux 
>>  > versions as possible.
>>  >>  >>> At this time there is NO other version for any 
> plattform on
>>  >>  >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ 
> available
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>>>> Normally the office would come via the 
> distro and 
>>  > would have been build for
>>  >>  >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the 
> system 
>>  > libraries. This is much
>>  >>  >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state 
> in the 
>>  > future...
>>  >>  >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there 
> is NO 
>>  > version to test
>>  >>  >>> it before a release.
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We 
> should 
>>  > update the build bot
>>  >>  >>>>> machine if possible. You have already 
> mentioned the 
>>  > note from Ariel. And it
>>  >>  >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit 
> build bot 
>>  > machine as well.  That
>>  >>  >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address 
> most the 
>>  > systems (an update
>>  >>  >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, 
> isn't it)
>>  >>  >>> It depends on the based distribution.
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e 
> very newer 
>>  > version of
>>  >>  >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we 
> use for 
>>  > our binary releases and
>>  >>  >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on 
> various 
>>  > systems for testing
>>  >>  >>>>> purposes.
>>  >>  >>> That's what I ask for.
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for 
> improvements, so 
>>  > let us start to
>>  >>  >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us 
> improve our 
>>  > build/release process
>>  >>  >>>>> over time.
>>  >>  >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming 
> from 
>>  > Apache?
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> Thats my question
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> Kind Regards
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> Mechtilde
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>>>> Juergen
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> Kind Regards
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>>> Mechtilde
>>  >>  >>>> 
>>  >>  >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>  >>  >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>  >>  >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - 
>>  > http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  >>  >>> 
>>  > iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>>  >>  >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>>  >>  >>> =ulAm
>>  >>  >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>  >>  > 
>>  >> 
>>  >> 
>>  > 
>> 
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 12:15 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Some friendly advice is to be careful how you "promote"
> that buildbot link.  The ASF has very strict rules regarding
> the promotion of releases versus build artifacts- which
> are only supposed to be exposed to fellow developers: see
> 
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what
> 
> 
> HTH

Thanks - ok, read that.

For a concrete example the OO.o project has historically had a link from
the download page to Developer Snapshots:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/next/index.html

I've noted a number of the developers on the mailing list here bring up
the idea of the weekly build - and that is where my thinking was, so
where I used buildBot, I'd substitute, this Developer Snapshot which I'd
presume will end up coming from the buildBot..

//drew

> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
> > 
> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>  On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> >> 
> >>  > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>  >> Hi Mechtilde,
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML 
> > closely they are discussed.
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day 
> > one.
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache 
> > Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog 
> > about it and let people know...
> >>  > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with 
> > infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is 
> > a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they 
> > are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed 
> > CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
> >> 
> >>  The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the 
> > logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
> >> 
> >>  > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
> >> 
> >>  I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of 
> > Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
> > 
> > My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
> > should take precedence for branding purpose.
> > 
> > In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
> > OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
> > smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
> > they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
> > 
> > I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
> > release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
> > ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
> > understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
> > this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
> > it sounds like.
> > 
> > I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
> > details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
> > signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
> > as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
> > up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
> > break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
> > concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
> > Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
> > full blown new name and branding, not the website.
> > 
> > just my .02
> > 
> > //drew
> > 
> >> 
> >>  Regards,
> >>  Dave
> >> 
> >>  > 
> >>  > A.
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> Regards,
> >>  >> Dave
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> >>  >> 
> >>  >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>  >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> Hello Jürgen,
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >>  >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, 
> > Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> Hey,
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to 
> > distribute
> >>  >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> But:
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> What should a user do?
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> There is no "official" binary available which 
> > anyone can install for
> >>  >>>> testing.
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> The DEB binary from  
> > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> >>  >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing 
> > happened. As
> >>  >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on 
> > the buildbot.
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to 
> > have binaries
> >>  >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to 
> > find a solution. We don't
> >>  >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the 
> > release engineers did a lot
> >>  >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux 
> > versions as possible.
> >>  >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> >>  >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and 
> > would have been build for
> >>  >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system 
> > libraries. This is much
> >>  >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the 
> > future...
> >>  >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO 
> > version to test
> >>  >>> it before a release.
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should 
> > update the build bot
> >>  >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the 
> > note from Ariel. And it
> >>  >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot 
> > machine as well.  That
> >>  >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the 
> > systems (an update
> >>  >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> >>  >>> It depends on the based distribution.
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer 
> > version of
> >>  >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for 
> > our binary releases and
> >>  >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various 
> > systems for testing
> >>  >>>>> purposes.
> >>  >>> That's what I ask for.
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so 
> > let us start to
> >>  >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our 
> > build/release process
> >>  >>>>> over time.
> >>  >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from 
> > Apache?
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> Thats my question
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> Kind Regards
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> Mechtilde
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>>>> Juergen
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> Kind Regards
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>>> Mechtilde
> >>  >>>> 
> >>  >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>  >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >>  >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - 
> > http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >>  >>> 
> >>  >>> 
> > iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
> >>  >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
> >>  >>> =ulAm
> >>  >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>  > 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.

Some friendly advice is to be careful how you "promote"
that buildbot link.  The ASF has very strict rules regarding
the promotion of releases versus build artifacts- which
are only supposed to be exposed to fellow developers: see

http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what


HTH



----- Original Message -----
> From: drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
> 
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>  On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>> 
>>  > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>  >> Hi Mechtilde,
>>  >> 
>>  >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML 
> closely they are discussed.
>>  >> 
>>  >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>>  >> 
>>  >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day 
> one.
>>  >> 
>>  >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache 
> Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>>  >> 
>>  >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>>  >> 
>>  >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog 
> about it and let people know...
>>  > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with 
> infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is 
> a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they 
> are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed 
> CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
>> 
>>  The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the 
> logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
>> 
>>  > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
>> 
>>  I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of 
> Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
> 
> My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
> should take precedence for branding purpose.
> 
> In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
> OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
> smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
> they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
> 
> I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
> release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
> ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
> understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
> this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
> it sounds like.
> 
> I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
> details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
> signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
> as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
> up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
> break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
> concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
> Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
> full blown new name and branding, not the website.
> 
> just my .02
> 
> //drew
> 
>> 
>>  Regards,
>>  Dave
>> 
>>  > 
>>  > A.
>>  >> 
>>  >> Regards,
>>  >> Dave
>>  >> 
>>  >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>>  >> 
>>  >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>  >>> Hash: SHA1
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Hello Jürgen,
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>  >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, 
> Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> Hey,
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to 
> distribute
>>  >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> But:
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> What should a user do?
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> There is no "official" binary available which 
> anyone can install for
>>  >>>> testing.
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> The DEB binary from  
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>  >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing 
> happened. As
>>  >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on 
> the buildbot.
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to 
> have binaries
>>  >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to 
> find a solution. We don't
>>  >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the 
> release engineers did a lot
>>  >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux 
> versions as possible.
>>  >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>>  >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and 
> would have been build for
>>  >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system 
> libraries. This is much
>>  >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the 
> future...
>>  >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO 
> version to test
>>  >>> it before a release.
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should 
> update the build bot
>>  >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the 
> note from Ariel. And it
>>  >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot 
> machine as well.  That
>>  >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the 
> systems (an update
>>  >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>>  >>> It depends on the based distribution.
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer 
> version of
>>  >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for 
> our binary releases and
>>  >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various 
> systems for testing
>>  >>>>> purposes.
>>  >>> That's what I ask for.
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so 
> let us start to
>>  >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our 
> build/release process
>>  >>>>> over time.
>>  >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from 
> Apache?
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Thats my question
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Kind Regards
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Mechtilde
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>>> Juergen
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> Kind Regards
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>>> Mechtilde
>>  >>>> 
>>  >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>  >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>  >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - 
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>>  >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>>  >>> =ulAm
>>  >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>  > 
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> 
> > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >> Hi Mechtilde,
> >> 
> >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
> >> 
> >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
> >> 
> >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
> >> 
> >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
> >> 
> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
> >> 
> >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
> > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
> 
> The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
> 
> > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
> 
> I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?

My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
should take precedence for branding purpose.

In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.

I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
it sounds like.

I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
full blown new name and branding, not the website.

just my .02

//drew

> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > A.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >> 
> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> >> 
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>> 
> >>> Hello Jürgen,
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hey,
> >>>> 
> >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> >>>> 
> >>>> But:
> >>>> 
> >>>> What should a user do?
> >>>> 
> >>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> >>>> testing.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> >>>> 
> >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> >>>> 
> >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
> >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
> >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
> >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
> >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
> >>> it before a release.
> >>> 
> >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
> >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
> >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
> >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
> >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> >>> It depends on the based distribution.
> >>> 
> >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
> >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> >>> 
> >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
> >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
> >>>>> purposes.
> >>> That's what I ask for.
> >>> 
> >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
> >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
> >>>>> over time.
> >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
> >>> 
> >>> Thats my question
> >>> 
> >>> Kind Regards
> >>> 
> >>> Mechtilde
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>> Juergen
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Kind Regards
> >>>> 
> >>>> Mechtilde
> >>>> 
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >>> 
> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
> >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
> >>> =ulAm
> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> 
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.

On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:

> On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> Hi Mechtilde,
>> 
>> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>> 
>> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>> 
>> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>> 
>> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>> 
>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>> 
>> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
> This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)

The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.

> This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.

I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> A.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> Hello Jürgen,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hey,
>>>> 
>>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>>> 
>>>> But:
>>>> 
>>>> What should a user do?
>>>> 
>>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>>>> testing.
>>>> 
>>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>>> 
>>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>>>> 
>>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>>> 
>>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>>> 
>>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>>> it before a release.
>>> 
>>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>>> It depends on the based distribution.
>>> 
>>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>>> 
>>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>>>> purposes.
>>> That's what I ask for.
>>> 
>>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>>>> over time.
>>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>>> 
>>> Thats my question
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> 
>>> Mechtilde
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> Juergen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>> 
>>>> Mechtilde
>>>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>> 
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>>> =ulAm
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.

On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Mechtilde,
>
> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.
>
> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>
> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.
>
> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>
> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>
> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...
This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with 
infrastructure to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure 
team is a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn.  
(right now they are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded 
a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)

This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.

A.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hello Jürgen,
>>
>>
>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<oo...@mechtilde.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> But:
>>>
>>> What should a user do?
>>>
>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>>> testing.
>>>
>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>>>
>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>>>
>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>>>
>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>>>
>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>>>
>>>
>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
>> it before a release.
>>
>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>> It depends on the based distribution.
>>
>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>>
>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>>> purposes.
>> That's what I ask for.
>>
>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>>> over time.
>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>>
>> Thats my question
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Mechtilde
>>
>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Mechtilde
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>> =ulAm
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.

Hi Mechtilde,

There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML closely they are discussed.

Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php

Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day one.

Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache Infra on buildbots for several platforms.

Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197

I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog about it and let people know...

Regards,
Dave

On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello Jürgen,
> 
> 
> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> Hi Mechtilde,
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Hey,
>> 
>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>> 
>> But:
>> 
>> What should a user do?
>> 
>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
>> testing.
>> 
>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>> 
>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>> 
>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>> 
>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>> 
>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>> 
>> 
>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> 
> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
> 
> 
> 
>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> 
> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
> it before a release.
> 
>> 
>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
> 
> It depends on the based distribution.
> 
> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
> 
>> 
>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>>> purposes.
> 
> That's what I ask for.
> 
>> 
>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>>> over time.
> 
> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
> 
> Thats my question
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
> 
>> 
>>> Juergen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> Mechtilde
>> 
>>> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
> =ulAm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de>.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Jürgen,


Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> Hi Mechtilde,
> 
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> 
> But:
> 
> What should a user do?
> 
> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> testing.
> 
> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> 
> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
> 
> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> 
> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> 
> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> to test from "official" build maschines.
> 
> 
>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
>> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.

At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available



>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...

There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version to test
it before a release.

> 
>> For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
>> would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)

It depends on the based distribution.

Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer version of
the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.

> 
>> We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
>> purposes.

That's what I ask for.

> 
>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
>> over time.

So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?

Thats my question

Kind Regards

Mechtilde


> 
>> Juergen
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
>>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
=ulAm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.

On 1/2/12 9:57 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>>> I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and
>>> I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand,
>>> so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing
>>> AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a "universal" Linux package.
>>
>> I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping
>> LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases
>> this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing
>> ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but
>> different from both, under the name "OpenOffice.org" and later under
>> the name "LibreOffice"; I think they are progressively aligning with
>> LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by
>> customizations).
>>
>> But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept
>> out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a
>> dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely
>> possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions.
>
> packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is
> that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to
> package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have
> packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require
> a very experienced packager.

you are right and the only chance I see is that users ask for it. To 
make this happen we have to deliver a good product that users want and 
that they would prefer over a pre-installed LibreOffice. Especially when 
it comes to commercial usage in companies this can be a key factor to 
convince the distros to provide AOO as well.

Juergen

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
> >>the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
> >>easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> >I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and
> >I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand,
> >so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing
> >AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a "universal" Linux package.
> 
> I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping
> LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases
> this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing
> ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but
> different from both, under the name "OpenOffice.org" and later under
> the name "LibreOffice"; I think they are progressively aligning with
> LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by
> customizations).
> 
> But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept
> out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a
> dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely
> possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions.

packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is
that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to
package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have
packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require
a very experienced packager.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.

Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
> I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and
> I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand,
> so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing
> AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a "universal" Linux package.

I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping 
LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases 
this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing 
ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to OpenOffice.org but different 
from both, under the name "OpenOffice.org" and later under the name 
"LibreOffice"; I think they are progressively aligning with LibreOffice 
now, which is good since users were often confused by customizations).

But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept out 
of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a dozen 
browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely possible to 
get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions.

Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> > binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
> >
> > But:
> >
> > What should a user do?
> >
> > There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> > testing.
> >
> > The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> > can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
> >
> > I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> > Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
> >
> > Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
> >
> > So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
> >
> > In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> > to test from "official" build maschines.
> >
> 
> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
> have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...

I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO, and
I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a brand,
so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and distributing 
AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a "universal" Linux package.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.

Hi Mechthilde,

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hey,
>
> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>
> But:
>
> What should a user do?
>
> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can install for
> testing.
>
> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>
> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing happened. As
> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on the buildbot.
>
> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>
> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>
> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to have binaries
> to test from "official" build maschines.
>

it's of course a serious problem where we have to find a solution. We don't
have the same infra structure as before and the release engineers did a lot
to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux versions as possible.
Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been build for
the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries. This is much
easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...

For now we have to find another solution. We should update the build bot
machine if possible. You have already mentioned the note from Ariel. And it
would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine as well.  That
would help a lot and would probably  address most the systems (an update
on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)

We should define the exact switches that we use for our binary releases and
hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various systems for testing
purposes.

There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so let us start to
figure our out what works best and let us improve our build/release process
over time.

Juergen

>
> Kind Regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8AHKAACgkQucZfh1OziSt+mwCgtRQh6KZgzlylXCu17u3m6FIe
> nnAAoIqFOhMoH80TR2+fbhMBW9VXnUQA
> =TxdM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>