11:01 a.m.
openoffice really needs to lose some weight!
I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
to remove unwanted languages.
11:02 a.m.
On Fri, January 28, 2005 12:01 pm, Joshua Andrews said:
openoffice really needs to lose some weight!
I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
to remove unwanted languages.
Already planned. Someone more informed may answer, but I think FC4 is
the target for delivering openoffice as you suggest.
Sean
11:10 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:02 -0500, Sean wrote:
On Fri, January 28, 2005 12:01 pm, Joshua Andrews said:
> openoffice really needs to lose some weight!
>
> I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
> to remove unwanted languages.
Already planned. Someone more informed may answer, but I think FC4 is
the target for delivering openoffice as you suggest.
100% Correct.
Dan
5:18 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:10 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:02 -0500, Sean wrote:
> On Fri, January 28, 2005 12:01 pm, Joshua Andrews said:
> > openoffice really needs to lose some weight!
> >
> > I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
> > to remove unwanted languages.
>
> Already planned. Someone more informed may answer, but I think FC4 is
> the target for delivering openoffice as you suggest.
100% Correct.
But are you planning to just remove the unwanted languages, or are you
intending to separate the languages out into different RPMs.
I'd prefer the second to the first. Updating OOo (which has happened a
number of times over FC2 and FC3 is a PITA given the size of the files
and having to download the entire language set for one or two languages
doesn't really seem like a huge step forward.
Rodd
--
From the pain come the dream
From the dream come the vision
From the vision come the people
From the people come the power
From this power come the change
- Peter Gabriel
11:11 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 09:01 -0800, Joshua Andrews wrote:
openoffice really needs to lose some weight!
I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
to remove unwanted languages.
The language-specific files in the i18n RPM _are_ tagged with their
respective language (using %lang specfile directive) so you can
theoretically set some RPM macro and only install what you really want.
Dan
12:40 p.m.
Hi,
> I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script
included
> to remove unwanted languages.
The language-specific files in the i18n RPM _are_ tagged with their
respective language (using %lang specfile directive) so you can
theoretically set some RPM macro and only install what you really want.
Which is nice.
Any chance of OOo 2 (beta) being brought into testing. It really is
fantastic!
TTFN
Paul
--
"I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I do know World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Einstein
1:23 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 18:40 +0000, Paul wrote:
Hi,
> > I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
> > to remove unwanted languages.
>
> The language-specific files in the i18n RPM _are_ tagged with their
> respective language (using %lang specfile directive) so you can
> theoretically set some RPM macro and only install what you really want.
Which is nice.
Any chance of OOo 2 (beta) being brought into testing. It really is
fantastic!
More than likely, but remember that the OOo 2.0 ship date is currently
"April/May", and the freeze for FC4 is May 2nd at this time. Red Hat
has been burned in the past by shipping non-final software with a
release (even though it had been worked on/tested for a while
beforehand), so its unlikely that a non-final OOo 2.0 would make it into
FC4. We'll have to see. IF 2.0 were pushed to Rawhide, and IF 2.0
didn't make final before the freeze for FC4, then it would probably get
pulled before FC4 went live and the package reverted to 1.1.4. Its all
kind of "wait and see" at this point.
Dan
1:32 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Dan Williams wrote:
FC4. We'll have to see. IF 2.0 were pushed to Rawhide, and IF
2.0
didn't make final before the freeze for FC4, then it would probably get
pulled before FC4 went live and the package reverted to 1.1.4. Its all
kind of "wait and see" at this point.
Why not make both available? After all, fedora includes both gcc3.x and
gcc4, although gcc4 definitely has issues.
-Dan
1:53 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <goemon(a)anime.net> wrote:
Why not make both available? After all, fedora includes both gcc3.x
and
gcc4, although gcc4 definitely has issues.
how big are the gcc3.x and gcc4.x package sets?
how big are the openoffice.org packages?
Considering the size of openoffice I think it would be irresponsible
to choose to ship multiple versions of it in Core considering the need
to be respectful of overall bloat.
There is also a question of confusing the target audience.
Requiring the target audience of a compiler to know the difference
between gcc3 and gcc4 is a small burden.
Requiring the target audience of oo.org or other end-user application
to understand the difference between the 2 versions of the same
application being offered in Core would in my estimation be a much
larger burden on the target group and cause significant confusion.
I don't think its really worth providing multiple versions of the
same 'large' end-user application at all. Either oo.org 2.0 ships with
fc4 or it doesn't.. it will clearly be in fc5. In the meantime the
maintainer should make the appropriate choice and pick one version of
the application to ship in fc4 based on the experience with the
codebase and the expected maintainership burden for fc4 updates.
Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
-jef
2:03 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:53 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis
<goemon(a)anime.net> wrote:
> Why not make both available? After all, fedora includes both gcc3.x and
> gcc4, although gcc4 definitely has issues.
how big are the gcc3.x and gcc4.x package sets?
how big are the openoffice.org packages?
Considering the size of openoffice I think it would be irresponsible
to choose to ship multiple versions of it in Core considering the need
to be respectful of overall bloat.
There is also a question of confusing the target audience.
Requiring the target audience of a compiler to know the difference
between gcc3 and gcc4 is a small burden.
Requiring the target audience of oo.org or other end-user application
to understand the difference between the 2 versions of the same
application being offered in Core would in my estimation be a much
larger burden on the target group and cause significant confusion.
I don't think its really worth providing multiple versions of the
same 'large' end-user application at all. Either oo.org 2.0 ships with
fc4 or it doesn't.. it will clearly be in fc5. In the meantime the
maintainer should make the appropriate choice and pick one version of
the application to ship in fc4 based on the experience with the
codebase and the expected maintainership burden for fc4 updates.
Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
Since the current timelines are such that there may be a minimal amount
of time between the release of FC4 final and OO.org 2.0 final, would it
be reasonable to consider making OO.org 2.0 available as an update to
FC4 when ready?
Or is that such a significant update, that it would be against FC
philosophy to include it as an update and only make it available with a
new FC release?
I am just raising the possibility that with roughly 6 months between FC
releases, it means that folks would need to wait almost until the end of
the year to take advantage of significant new functionality in OO.org.
I agree though, that both version should not be included. It's just way
too big.
Marc
2:11 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis
<goemon(a)anime.net> wrote:
> Why not make both available? After all, fedora includes both gcc3.x and
> gcc4, although gcc4 definitely has issues.
how big are the gcc3.x and gcc4.x package sets?
how big are the openoffice.org packages?
Considering the size of openoffice I think it would be irresponsible
to choose to ship multiple versions of it in Core considering the need
to be respectful of overall bloat.
any reason it can't be made available on extras?
if not, then the question would be -- does it get released later as a yum
update to completely replace openoffice1, or does it wait till FC5?
-Dan
2:17 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:11 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <goemon(a)anime.net>
wrote:
> > Why not make both available? After all, fedora includes both gcc3.x and
> > gcc4, although gcc4 definitely has issues.
> how big are the gcc3.x and gcc4.x package sets?
> how big are the openoffice.org packages?
> Considering the size of openoffice I think it would be irresponsible
> to choose to ship multiple versions of it in Core considering the need
> to be respectful of overall bloat.
any reason it can't be made available on extras?
if not, then the question would be -- does it get released later as a yum
update to completely replace openoffice1, or does it wait till FC5?
b/c it is not an extra.
it would be an alternative.
-sv
5:44 a.m.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Alexandre Strube wrote:
Em Sex, 2005-01-28 às 12:11 -0800, Dan Hollis escreveu:
> any reason it can't be made available on extras?
no, please not double versions - openoffice 2 is already being shipped
as rpm openoffice guys. why don't way for a final release?
So it's either do a major upgrade (oo1.1.2 -> 2.0) in the middle of FC4,
or put it off till FC5...
Or delay FC4 till oo2.0 is released...
Did I miss one?
-Dan
9:52 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:44:32AM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
So it's either do a major upgrade (oo1.1.2 -> 2.0) in the
middle of FC4,
or put it off till FC5...
Or delay FC4 till oo2.0 is released...
Did I miss one?
How about openoffice.org-1.1.2 and openoffice.org2-2.0, both in FC4? :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
--> Fedora Users & Developers Conference, hosted by Boston University <--
February 18th, 2005 <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon1>
10:08 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 10:52 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:44:32AM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> So it's either do a major upgrade (oo1.1.2 -> 2.0) in the middle of FC4,
> or put it off till FC5...
> Or delay FC4 till oo2.0 is released...
> Did I miss one?
How about openoffice.org-1.1.2 and openoffice.org2-2.0, both in FC4? :)
that one sucks; you need to parallel install (or "everything" installs
go wonky) and that is not an easy thing for big packages like OOo. Far
better to spend the time that would take on getting 2.0 out faster ;)
11 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:08:21PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> How about openoffice.org-1.1.2 and openoffice.org2-2.0, both in
FC4? :)
that one sucks; you need to parallel install (or "everything" installs
go wonky) and that is not an easy thing for big packages like OOo. Far
better to spend the time that would take on getting 2.0 out faster ;)
Yeah, just bringing it up for completeness. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
--> Fedora Users & Developers Conference, hosted by Boston University <--
February 18th, 2005 <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon1>
11 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 10:52 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:44:32AM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> So it's either do a major upgrade (oo1.1.2 -> 2.0) in the middle of FC4,
> or put it off till FC5...
> Or delay FC4 till oo2.0 is released...
> Did I miss one?
How about openoffice.org-1.1.2 and openoffice.org2-2.0, both in FC4? :)
We have a goal of trying to keep fc4 UNDER 5 CDS and limited to 1 DVD.
having both is gonna suck.
-sv
3:16 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 03:44 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
Or delay FC4 till oo2.0 is released...
OO2 is hugely important to some subset of the Fedora-using population,
the type involved in office or admin work rather than devel or code. If
the time difference is not too large (in my eyes, anything over 30 days)
I would definitely suggest that we delay FC4 to wait for OO2.
Alternately, we could include the OO2-beta9999 last-one-before-final and
then update to the final 2.0 when available. But please, please, please
let's have OO2 in FC4. The office users of FC4 everywhere will bless
you!
Cheers,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com>
11:08 a.m.
Alexandre Strube wrote:
Em Sex, 2005-01-28 às 12:11 -0800, Dan Hollis escreveu:
>any reason it can't be made available on extras?
no, please not double versions - openoffice 2 is already being shipped
as rpm openoffice guys. why don't way for a final release?
I read briefly that openoffice 2 comes with base, I believe. Has anyone
tried out this feature? Is this a usable, uncomplicated database or is
it pretty intensive to setup.
I'm more for shipping any version of openoffice that can enhance the
usability. I also thing that Fedora would do well including a worthy
database with an easy to use frontend.
I take it that Openoffice rpms are available from the openoffice.org
site. If from some other sire, where are the rpms available?
Jim
--
"Love your country but never trust its government."
-- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania
11:35 a.m.
Hi,
I read briefly that openoffice 2 comes with base, I believe. Has
anyone
tried out this feature? Is this a usable, uncomplicated database or is
it pretty intensive to setup.
It's pretty easy to set up and use.
I take it that Openoffice rpms are available from the openoffice.org
site. If from some other sire, where are the rpms available?
The RPMs on the OOo website are for SuSE and Redhat. They work fine
under rawhide.
TTFN
Paul
--
"I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I do know World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Einstein
10:02 p.m.
Paul wrote:
Hi,
>I read briefly that openoffice 2 comes with base, I believe. Has anyone
>tried out this feature? Is this a usable, uncomplicated database or is
>it pretty intensive to setup.
It's pretty easy to set up and use.
>I take it that Openoffice rpms are available from the openoffice.org
>site. If from some other sire, where are the rpms available?
The RPMs on the OOo website are for SuSE and Redhat. They work fine
under rawhide.
TTFN
Paul
The packages work pretty much on FC3. I did get surprised by Base, which
is my interest primarily in OO v2.
I get this error:
OpenOffice.org requires a Java Runtime Environment (JRE). Please install
a JRE and restart OpenOffice.org
Anyway, I never installed JRE before. If Base will be included with OO2
in Fedora, if it arrives. Would provisions be made for overcoming this
requirement, or is Base probably out of the picture?
Jim
--
"Do you think what we're doing is wrong?"
"Of course it's wrong! It's illegal!"
"I've never done anything illegal before."
"I thought you said you were an accountant!"
4:40 a.m.
Hi,
I get this error:
OpenOffice.org requires a Java Runtime Environment (JRE). Please install
a JRE and restart OpenOffice.org
Anyway, I never installed JRE before. If Base will be included with OO2
in Fedora, if it arrives. Would provisions be made for overcoming this
requirement, or is Base probably out of the picture?
I remember reading one of the RH chaps had been converting it over to
use gcj rather than JRE and some bits weren't playing ball. As soon as
it is working with gcj it will be happy.
TTFN
Paul
--
"I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I do know World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Einstein
9:48 p.m.
Paul wrote:
--
Freedom is nothing else but the chance to do better.
-- Camus
Hi,
>I get this error:
>
>OpenOffice.org requires a Java Runtime Environment (JRE). Please install
>a JRE and restart OpenOffice.org
>
>Anyway, I never installed JRE before. If Base will be included with OO2
>in Fedora, if it arrives. Would provisions be made for overcoming this
>requirement, or is Base probably out of the picture?
I remember reading one of the RH chaps had been converting it over to
use gcj rather than JRE and some bits weren't playing ball. As soon as
it is working with gcj it will be happy.
TTFN
Paul
Are there any test packages from fedora that might somewhat work (at
least load enough to test out the program?
Anyway, good luck to the developer trying to overcome the JRE limitations.
Commenting on OO 2 in general, this should be the goal, final release or
not. I like the seperate rpms for different components, rather than one
huge openoffice.org rpm. I have no idea as to which rpm contains base
though.
:-)
Jim
openofficeorg-calc-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-core-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-draw-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-gnome-integration-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-graphicfilter-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-impress-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-javafilter-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-math-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-redhat-menus-1.9.74-1.noarch.rpm
openofficeorg-spellcheck-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-testtool-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-writer-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
openofficeorg-xsltfilter-1.9.74-1.i586.rpm
10:31 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 22:48 -0500, Jim Cornette wrote:
I have no idea as to which rpm contains base though.
I've only installed the following and I've got base installed.
openofficeorg-redhat-menus-1.9.71.1-1
openofficeorg-core-1.9.71.1-1
openofficeorg-xsltfilter-1.9.71.1-1
openofficeorg-writer-1.9.71.1-1
openofficeorg-graphicfilter-1.9.71.1-1
I'd be confident that it's not -redhat-menus, -xsltfiter or -
graphicfilter, so that only leaves -writer and -core. A quick look
through -writer (using less) doesn't show anything database looking, so
I quess it's still part of -core.
Rodd
--
From the pain come the dream
From the dream come the vision
From the vision come the people
From the people come the power
From this power come the change
- Peter Gabriel
6:09 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 10:40 +0000, Paul wrote:
> Anyway, I never installed JRE before. If Base will be included
with
OO2
> in Fedora, if it arrives. Would provisions be made for overcoming
this
> requirement, or is Base probably out of the picture?
Base uses hsqldb, an embedded Java-based database engine. It requires
some form of a JRE on your system
I remember reading one of the RH chaps had been converting it over
to
use gcj rather than JRE and some bits weren't playing ball. As soon as
it is working with gcj it will be happy.
That was to get it to build, not to run IMHO
--
Colin Charles, byte(a)aeon.com.my
http://www.bytebot.net/
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi
7:33 a.m.
Colin Charles wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 10:40 +0000, Paul wrote:
>>Anyway, I never installed JRE before. If Base will be included with
>
>OO2
>
>>in Fedora, if it arrives. Would provisions be made for overcoming
>
>this
>
>>requirement, or is Base probably out of the picture?
Base uses hsqldb, an embedded Java-based database engine. It requires
some form of a JRE on your system
I hope this hurdle regarding some form of a database engine for the
linux system is worked out. If needing JRE in some form is required, I
am not against that requirement. To get a usable, easy to configure and
manage simple database for Linux is the real goal. An acceptable
alternative for the wintel world would also help with cross-platform
development and usage.
>I remember reading one of the RH chaps had been converting it over to
>use gcj rather than JRE and some bits weren't playing ball. As soon as
>it is working with gcj it will be happy.
That was to get it to build, not to run IMHO
After trying to get base to do anything substantial with either a build
on the wintel platform or on the linux platform, I figure that there is
really a lot of development needed to get this program running in an
acceptable way. I'd love to see it working to an acceptable level. I
have simple file databases originally created in 1997 with msaccess 2.0
(now at 2000) that I'd like to move away from msaccess and get working
with base.
Base on wintel does get to where you can create forms, but intermingles
the form within every application on your desktop.
With the linux (fc test) version, I was only able to successfully create
tables and to open dbase tables that were exported from access.mdb
tables into dbase tables.
The form wizards did not and working with adding items to new forms was
pretty much a "what toolbar or menu choice lets me add an item to a
form, relate the form to a record source or whatever."
It is great for some database frontend functionality is being added to
the program. I would like to see it included or some other simple
database into core or extras, if not this time, FC5.
Jim
--
"I admit I've done too much playing around without understanding
the issues involved over the last years as well, but it's time
to stop reinventing the (sometimes octangular) wheel and learn
everything from history which we can learn."
- Rik van Riel
6:13 a.m.
any reason it can't be made available on extras?
Agreed. Release it to extras if it can't make core. Call it
openoffice.org.2-version or something, and make sure it conflicts
openoffice.org (to make sure paralell installs are possible).
Kyrre
2:52 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 13:13 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
> any reason it can't be made available on extras?
Agreed. Release it to extras if it can't make core. Call it
openoffice.org.2-version or something, and make sure it conflicts
openoffice.org (to make sure paralell installs are possible).
Um, why do you want them to conflict if you also want them to be
parallel installable? Those two things sound mutually exclusive to me.
Aside from that, I think it's already been discussed in this thread
that making two versions of a package as huge and complex as OOo
parallel installable is more effort than its worth.
Better to pick one of 1) ship an almost-final beta and issue an update
to 2.0 when it's released, 2) ship 1.1.x and resign ourselves to that
being the version eternally paired with FC4, 3) delay the release of FC4
in the hopes that OOo 2.0 will be shipped so as to not cause a
significant delay.
Personally, I'm somewhat partial to delay FC4, but only if the delay
is, as some one else has suggested, less than 30 days.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
10:52 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 15:52 -0500, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
Better to pick one of 1) ship an almost-final beta and issue an
update
to 2.0 when it's released, 2) ship 1.1.x and resign ourselves to that
being the version eternally paired with FC4, 3) delay the release of FC4
in the hopes that OOo 2.0 will be shipped so as to not cause a
significant delay.
Personally, I'm somewhat partial to delay FC4, but only if the delay
is, as some one else has suggested, less than 30 days.
I know I've already said this (in fact, I was the one who suggested <30
days as a good decision point for delaying FC4), but:
1. If <30 days, delay FC4.
2. If not, then ship the almost-final beta with FC4 and update to
final when it's ready.
Please...
Cheers,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com>
10:24 a.m.
tir, 01.02.2005 kl. 17.52 skrev Rodolfo J. Paiz:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 15:52 -0500, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> Better to pick one of 1) ship an almost-final beta and issue an update
> to 2.0 when it's released, 2) ship 1.1.x and resign ourselves to that
> being the version eternally paired with FC4, 3) delay the release of FC4
> in the hopes that OOo 2.0 will be shipped so as to not cause a
> significant delay.
> Personally, I'm somewhat partial to delay FC4, but only if the delay
> is, as some one else has suggested, less than 30 days.
I know I've already said this (in fact, I was the one who suggested <30
days as a good decision point for delaying FC4), but:
1. If <30 days, delay FC4.
2. If not, then ship the almost-final beta with FC4 and update to
final when it's ready.
Please...
Or provide "openoffice2.org-2.0.i386.rpm" that conflicts openoffice.org
in extras?
10:35 a.m.
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:24:36 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak
<kyrre(a)solution-forge.net> wrote:
Or provide "openoffice2.org-2.0.i386.rpm" that conflicts
openoffice.org
in extras?
sorry... under the current definition of extras as a continuation of
Core.. thats probably not an acceptible proposal.
-jef
2:10 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2005, Dan Williams <dcbw(a)redhat.com> wrote:
IF 2.0 were pushed to Rawhide, and IF 2.0 didn't make final
before
the freeze for FC4, then it would probably get pulled before FC4
went live and the package reverted to 1.1.4.
Wouldn't it be better to have it in rawhide, ship whatever
nearly-there 2.0ish release at the freeze date, with an update to be
released as soon as it goes final? Upgrading form 1.1.4 to 2.0 within
a release might be a bit too much...
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
5:15 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 18:10 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> IF 2.0 were pushed to Rawhide, and IF 2.0 didn't make final
before
> the freeze for FC4, then it would probably get pulled before FC4
> went live and the package reverted to 1.1.4.
Wouldn't it be better to have it in rawhide, ship whatever
nearly-there 2.0ish release at the freeze date, with an update to be
released as soon as it goes final? Upgrading form 1.1.4 to 2.0 within
a release might be a bit too much...
I like this option. As someone who installs the beta of OOo-2.x I would
much prefer to see OOo-2.x in FC4 (because it's better) than OOo.1-x.
As I see it, given that FC is a download only distro, I'm all for the
occasional inclusion of pre-release software. If you want totally
solid, you shouldn't be using FC (IMHO).
Rodd
--
From the pain come the dream
From the dream come the vision
From the vision come the people
From the people come the power
From this power come the change
- Peter Gabriel
11:05 a.m.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:15:16 +1100, Rodd Clarkson <rodd(a)clarkson.id.au> wrote:
As I see it, given that FC is a download only distro,
??????
several 3rd party vendors SELL mediasets for FC...
http://fedora.redhat.com/download/vendors.html
-jef
1:03 p.m.
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
As I see it, given that FC is a download only distro, I'm all for
the
occasional inclusion of pre-release software. If you want totally
solid, you shouldn't be using FC (IMHO).
"Totally solid" is somewhat subjective.... In general, I disagree with
shipping software with FC if the software has *known* problems.
I think a lot of people use FC as an alternative to MS products
*because* FC is pretty reliable for non-critical work. If you really
want/need better stability, use one of pay-for-it distributions (RHEE etc).
Channels are already in place to distribute bleeding-edge versions of
software (rawhide?), but that should not be the *default*.
Personally, I like the *leading-edge* of FC with frequent package
updates, and a short release cycle... maybe as my skills improve etc,
I'll start getting updates from rawhide and playing more dangerously...
but don't start imposing those higher risks on FC in general. Let people
decide to increase risk on their own.
Bottom line: there's already a working process for distributing
pre-release software to the FC community, that's rawhide. Don't start
distributing pre-release software with the final-release iso images.
Don Russell
9:19 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 11:03 -0800, Don Russell wrote:
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> As I see it, given that FC is a download only distro, I'm all for the
> occasional inclusion of pre-release software. If you want totally
> solid, you shouldn't be using FC (IMHO).
"Totally solid" is somewhat subjective.... In general, I disagree with
shipping software with FC if the software has *known* problems.
<snip>
Bottom line: there's already a working process for distributing
pre-release software to the FC community, that's rawhide. Don't start
distributing pre-release software with the final-release iso images.
So firefox-0.10.1-1.0PR1.20 shouldn't have been included with FC3?
What about thunderbird-0.8.0-9?
I'm not saying that FC should be just including ANY pre-release
software, but it has include some well tested pre-release software and I
for one applaud the inclusion of firefox and thunderbird in FC3 (instead
of having to wait for FC4).
Why can't OOo-2.x pre-release be included (given significant testing)
and then updated to 2.0 final after FC4 is released. It's not like this
hasn't been done before.
Rodd
--
From the pain come the dream
From the dream come the vision
From the vision come the people
From the people come the power
From this power come the change
- Peter Gabriel
10:24 p.m.
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
So firefox-0.10.1-1.0PR1.20 shouldn't have been included with
FC3?
What about thunderbird-0.8.0-9?
I guess it depends on what we mean by "pre-release"... Is anything 0.x
"pre-release"? From what I've read here OOo-2.x pre-release isn't quite
ready for the masses. Personally, I'd rather have a less feature-rich
but stable product, than a feature-rich product that crashes, hangs or
whatever else inconveniences me.
I'm not saying that FC should be just including ANY pre-release
software, but it has include some well tested pre-release software and I
for one applaud the inclusion of firefox and thunderbird in FC3 (instead
of having to wait for FC4).
I agree with that... I use FireFox and Thunderbird... and even
bugzilla'd one or two things... Thunderbird 1.0 has some annoyances...
but nothing I've found that's caused me any real grief. :-)
Why can't OOo-2.x pre-release be included (given significant
testing)
and then updated to 2.0 final after FC4 is released. It's not like this
hasn't been done before.
I'd have to ask what "significant testing" means.... :-)
Given the short release cycle of FC, I don't see the problem of
deferring a program package to the next release, or making it available
via up2date. If people really need to run code that close to the
bleeding edge, they're free to do so via rawhide.
Is it really a matter of choosing between FC4 and FC5? If omitted from
FC4, why can't it made available via up2date at some time prior to FC5?
(up2date is one of pet peeves but it is A LOT better than it used to be)
Don
10:41 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 20:24 -0800, Don Russell wrote:
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> So firefox-0.10.1-1.0PR1.20 shouldn't have been included with FC3?
> What about thunderbird-0.8.0-9?
I guess it depends on what we mean by "pre-release"... Is anything 0.x
"pre-release"? From what I've read here OOo-2.x pre-release isn't quite
ready for the masses. Personally, I'd rather have a less feature-rich
but stable product, than a feature-rich product that crashes, hangs or
whatever else inconveniences me.
That PR in the firefox file name means pre-release.
While OOo-2.x hasn't achieved pre-release yet, I've been very happy
using it. Much better than OOo-1.x
<snip>
> Why can't OOo-2.x pre-release be included (given significant
testing)
> and then updated to 2.0 final after FC4 is released. It's not like this
> hasn't been done before.
I'd have to ask what "significant testing" means.... :-)
Significant testing means putting OOo-2.x into rawhide so people can
(and will) bang on it with whatever they use to bang things. ;-]
Without it's inclusion it rawhide it's going to be really hard to know
whether it's up to snuff, but given that it's due for final release
around the same time as FC4 it should be pretty good.
People using FC3 already know what OOo-1.1.x is like, so this would be a
good way to get them to compare the two.
Given the short release cycle of FC, I don't see the problem of
deferring a program package to the next release, or making it available
via up2date. If people really need to run code that close to the
bleeding edge, they're free to do so via rawhide.
OOo-2.x isn't that close to the bleeding edge. Remember, like Firefox
was to be ready around the same time as FC3, OOo is slated for final
release around the same time as FC4. That's hardly bleeding edge.
Thunderbird wasn't even close to release when FC3 was released.
Is it really a matter of choosing between FC4 and FC5? If omitted
from
FC4, why can't it made available via up2date at some time prior to FC5?
As I understand it, Redhat is loath to update software that isn't binary
compatible during a release. So usually anything with a different major
number is held back until the next release. The difference between
OOo-1.1.x and OOo-2.x are big enough that I wouldn't think RH would want
to upgrade to 2.x mid release.
Consider that there was some concern about going from gimp-2.0.x to
gimp-2.2.x even though they were supposed to be binary compatible, and
while it did happen, it doesn't happen often.
(up2date is one of pet peeves but it is A LOT better than it used to
be)
I wouldn't know. I used to struggle with it until Alan Cox said it was
a piece of crap (my paraphrasing) and that it should be dumped from FC.
Given how nice yum is getting I couldn't agree more. ;-]
Rodd
--
From the pain come the dream
From the dream come the vision
From the vision come the people
From the people come the power
From this power come the change
- Peter Gabriel
11:18 p.m.
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
Significant testing means putting OOo-2.x into rawhide so people can
(and will) bang on it with whatever they use to bang things. ;-]
Without it's inclusion it rawhide it's going to be really hard to know
whether it's up to snuff, but given that it's due for final release
around the same time as FC4 it should be pretty good.
OK... I have no objection to putting it into rawhide...
>Is it really a matter of choosing between FC4 and FC5? If omitted
from
>FC4, why can't it made available via up2date at some time prior to FC5?
As I understand it, Redhat is loath to update software that isn't binary
compatible during a release. So usually anything with a different major
number is held back until the next release. The difference between
OOo-1.1.x and OOo-2.x are big enough that I wouldn't think RH would want
to upgrade to 2.x mid release.
Consider that there was some concern about going from gimp-2.0.x to
gimp-2.2.x even though they were supposed to be binary compatible, and
while it did happen, it doesn't happen often.
OK.. you convinced me.... :-)
>(up2date is one of pet peeves but it is A LOT better than it used
to be)
I wouldn't know. I used to struggle with it until Alan Cox said it was
a piece of crap (my paraphrasing) and that it should be dumped from FC.
Given how nice yum is getting I couldn't agree more. ;-]
I've heard that too.... One of these days I'll "take the plunge" and
learn how to use yum... in the mean time, I'm configuring sendmail,
procmail, apache, ftp.... yum is on my to-do list :-)
Don
3:32 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 21:18 -0800, Don Russell wrote:
Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> Significant testing means putting OOo-2.x into rawhide so people can
> (and will) bang on it with whatever they use to bang things. ;-]
> Without it's inclusion it rawhide it's going to be really hard to know
> whether it's up to snuff, but given that it's due for final release
> around the same time as FC4 it should be pretty good.
OK... I have no objection to putting it into rawhide...
On the OpenOffice.org2 topic
- I'd like 2.0 for FC4
- A little status update, Java became a build-time requirement to create
the help-documentation for 2.0, and lots of extra components are in
java, so rather than continue to find workarounds by disabling java
bits, I expended my time building it with gcj, which is now possible and
upstreamed for essential bits. Similiarly hauling around a seperate copy
of mozilla, python et al within OOo didn't seem too appealing,
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/progress/progress.png
- I'll make some basic x86 rawhide rpms available from
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2 tomorrow, and sometime
during the week ppc arch and the seperate language packs, if its not
totally cocked up then perhaps we can think about rawhide :-)
C.
3:29 p.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:32 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
- I'll make some basic x86 rawhide rpms available from
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2 tomorrow
OpenOffice.org 1.9.73 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
for interested parties. Use at your own risk, etc etc.
C.
4:36 p.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
Hi,
OpenOffice.org 1.9.73 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
for interested parties. Use at your own risk, etc etc.
Brilliant.
Do these need installing as ihv or Uhv?
TTFN
Paul
--
"I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I do know World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Einstein
5:18 p.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 21:29 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
OpenOffice.org 1.9.73 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
for interested parties. Use at your own risk, etc etc.
Whoops. Needs menu icons.
Also, all oo*2 commands start Writer, and when exiting, a message
similar to the following shows up:
/usr/lib/openoffice.org1.9.73/program/soffice: line 235: 8598 \
Segmentation fault "$sd_prog/$sd_binary" "$@"
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez(a)ivazquez.net>
http://fedora.ivazquez.net/
7:42 a.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 18:18 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 21:29 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
/usr/lib/openoffice.org1.9.73/program/soffice: line 235: 8598 \
Segmentation fault "$sd_prog/$sd_binary" "$@"
Yeah, I've figured that one out, it's a pretty cool bug.
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=41904
C.
6:01 p.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
Caolan McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:32 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
>- I'll make some basic x86 rawhide rpms available from
>http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2 tomorrow
OpenOffice.org 1.9.73 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
for interested parties. Use at your own risk, etc etc.
C.
Thanks! Base comes up and is what my interest was related to. I tried
the wintel version earlier today and it had issues.
For those wanting the launcher to the the programs. This attached is a
gnome desktop launcher attached. Crude but open new for choices.
Jim
--
Freedom is nothing else but the chance to do better.
-- Camus
6:48 p.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:01:12 -0500, Jim Cornette
<fct-cornette(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
Caolan McNamara wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:32 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
>
>>- I'll make some basic x86 rawhide rpms available from
>>http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2 tomorrow
>
>
> OpenOffice.org 1.9.73 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
> http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
> for interested parties. Use at your own risk, etc etc.
>
> C.
>
>
>
Thanks! Base comes up and is what my interest was related to. I tried
the wintel version earlier today and it had issues.
For those wanting the launcher to the the programs. This attached is a
gnome desktop launcher attached. Crude but open new for choices.
Those rpm(s) works fine on FC3 as well.
The same Segmentation Fault on exit, as have reported earlier
above the lines.
Thanks, Jim, but I've already edit menu by hand.
Why gnome-gegel? Rather /ooo_gulls.png?
SAITO Toshiyuki
10:19 p.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
SAITO Toshiyuki wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:01:12 -0500, Jim Cornette
<fct-cornette(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
>Caolan McNamara wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:32 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>- I'll make some basic x86 rawhide rpms available from
>>>http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2 tomorrow
>>
>>
>>OpenOffice.org 1.9.73 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
>>http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
>>for interested parties. Use at your own risk, etc etc.
>>
>>C.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Thanks! Base comes up and is what my interest was related to. I tried
>the wintel version earlier today and it had issues.
>
>For those wanting the launcher to the the programs. This attached is a
>gnome desktop launcher attached. Crude but open new for choices.
Those rpm(s) works fine on FC3 as well.
The same Segmentation Fault on exit, as have reported earlier
above the lines.
Thanks, Jim, but I've already edit menu by hand.
Why gnome-gegel? Rather /ooo_gulls.png?
SAITO Toshiyuki
It was the first interesting icon that I changed upon. I was more
interested in uniqueness than hunting down the icon. Also, I have the
rpms from openoffice that sport the gull. The two seperate versions
co-exist without interfering, /opt instead of the Fedora location.
One thing that I noted on Base when creating a new database, it defaults
to initialize. It should not register the db beforehand. The tables
cannot be created in this mode. After passing that hurdle, I created a
table without trouble.
Jim
--
Freedom is nothing else but the chance to do better.
-- Camus
8:15 a.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
Testing OpenOffice.org 1.9.75 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
C.
8:52 a.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 16:15, Caolan McNamara wrote:
Testing OpenOffice.org 1.9.75 i386 rpms for rawhide available
from...
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
Can you please provide the src.rpm of these test packs ?
I will atempt to build it on sparc/aurora too, but i want pack in fedorish' style.
Actualy OOo2 run/build on sparc, but i want pack it in a nice *.sparc.rpm form.
Thanks in advance,
~cristian
9:06 a.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
Same thing but x86_64 for me :D
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:52:27 +0200, Balint Cristian <rezso(a)rdsor.ro> wrote:
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 16:15, Caolan McNamara wrote:
> Testing OpenOffice.org 1.9.75 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
>
> http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
Can you please provide the src.rpm of these test packs ?
I will atempt to build it on sparc/aurora too, but i want pack in fedorish'
style.
Actualy OOo2 run/build on sparc, but i want pack it in a nice *.sparc.rpm form.
Thanks in advance,
~cristian
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
9:19 a.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 17:06, Justin Conover wrote:
Same thing but x86_64 for me :D
stop, read this first:
http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2005-01-23T11_34_01.html
64bit is not yet fully implemented in OO1/2, but can give a try/help to test debug it.
I think Dan Williams @RH know better this issue status, probably he is working on.
But, indeed a ppc build can be exist too of caolan src.rpm :) I would love it too on my
ibook :)
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:52:27 +0200, Balint Cristian
<rezso(a)rdsor.ro> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 February 2005 16:15, Caolan McNamara wrote:
> > Testing OpenOffice.org 1.9.75 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
> >
> > http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
>
> Can you please provide the src.rpm of these test packs ?
>
> I will atempt to build it on sparc/aurora too, but i want pack in
fedorish' style.
> Actualy OOo2 run/build on sparc, but i want pack it in a nice *.sparc.rpm form.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> ~cristian
>
> --
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>
10:24 a.m.
New subject: openoffice.org 1.9.73 testing rpms
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 16:52 +0200, Balint Cristian wrote:
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 16:15, Caolan McNamara wrote:
> Testing OpenOffice.org 1.9.75 i386 rpms for rawhide available from...
>
> http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/i386/
Can you please provide the src.rpm of these test packs ?
ok, http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/openoffice.org2/SRPMS/
note
a), its not going to fly for 64bit as that's a work in progress and the
64bit patches are not in that rpm, and probably won't be until the 64bit
port does a bit more than crash on startup :-P
b), ppc was not built in this test run because it failed in my last
build 8 hours in due to some bizarre ppc/gcj/uno thing whose root cause
escapes me. I'm not sure if I included the quick fix in the ppc patch in
the src.rpm yet, but if not then its to #if 0 out the avmedia JAR entry
in the scp2/source/ooo/files_library.scp, otherwise the src.rpm should
be ok for ppc.
I'll hopefully get the language packs for seperate rpms for diverse
languages working for the next test and then we can walk around and kick
its wheels a bit. FWIW 1.9.78 is penciled in as the OOo2.0 beta.
Some interesting things about what we have to date is that gcc's
-fvisibility=hidden stuff is in use for a lot of modules now which
should give some good startup-speedups, in addition to many other tweaks
and movement of huge chunks of code about the place so it should
materalize on screen faster than 1.1.X (well, in theory). Moving to -Os
rather than -O1 from ./configure (in-house Hamburg StarOffice defaults
to -Os without flaw apparently) is still pending
C.
10:12 a.m.
On Friday 28 January 2005 12:11, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 09:01 -0800, Joshua Andrews wrote:
> openoffice really needs to lose some weight!
>
> I think openoffice.org-i18n needs to be broken up or a script included
> to remove unwanted languages.
The language-specific files in the i18n RPM _are_ tagged with their
respective language (using %lang specfile directive) so you can
theoretically set some RPM macro and only install what you really want.
It would be nice if this "language selection" capability was also in anaconda.
--
Gene
7004
days inactive
7020
days old
53 comments
25 participants
participants (25)
-
Alexandre Oliva -
Alexandre Strube -
Arjan van de Ven -
Balint Cristian -
Caolán McNamara -
Colin Charles -
Dan Hollis -
Dan Williams -
Don Russell -
Gene C. -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jef Spaleta -
Jim Cornette -
Joshua Andrews -
Justin Conover -
Kyrre Ness Sjobak -
Marc Schwartz -
Matthew Miller -
Paul F. Johnson -
Paul Iadonisi -
Rodd Clarkson -
Rodolfo J. Paiz -
SAITO Toshiyuki -
Sean -
seth vidal