A 4.1.6 Release

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A 4.1.6 Release

Peter Kovacs-3
Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff
to get out to the people.

Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
Containing some security fixes, plus


  - Java 8 Update 172
  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
  - Mozilla Build 3.2
  - NSIS 3.03
  - some minor fixes

I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release.
I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)

I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6
branch.

Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)


All the best

Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Kay Schenk-2
Hi *,

If 4.1.6 would contain some needed security fixes, by all means, it
needs to be released as soon as possible.

Some questions --

Will Java 8  then be the minimum version to use 4.1.6?
Because Ant is only used for building, this should not affect any
end-user requirements, right?
Would 4.1.6 still be using gstreamer 0.10?



On 07/01/2018 08:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
> stuff to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
> 4.1.6 branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

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

"Less is MORE."


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Peter Kovacs-3
Hi Kay,

I am not sure but I think the Java Patch and Ant Patch are build related.

The Gstreamer 1.0 API is scheduled for 4.2.0. SO 4.1.6 will still use
gstreamer 4.1.6.


All the best

Peter



On 01.07.2018 23:51, Kay Schenk wrote:

> Hi *,
>
> If 4.1.6 would contain some needed security fixes, by all means, it
> needs to be released as soon as possible.
>
> Some questions --
>
> Will Java 8  then be the minimum version to use 4.1.6?
> Because Ant is only used for building, this should not affect any
> end-user requirements, right?
> Would 4.1.6 still be using gstreamer 0.10?
>
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 08:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> Hi everbody.
>>
>>
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
>> stuff to get out to the people.
>>
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>
>>
>>   - Java 8 Update 172
>>   - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>   - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>   - NSIS 3.03
>>   - some minor fixes
>>
>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
>> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
>> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>>
>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
>> 4.1.6 branch.
>>
>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Works for me...

> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6 branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Carl Marcum
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Hi Peter,


On 07/01/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
> stuff to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
> 4.1.6 branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>

I should be available to test builds in July.

I'll be unavailable a few weeks in mid-August for vacation.

Best regards,
Carl


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Keith N. McKenna
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
On 7/1/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff
> to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release.
> I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6
> branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
Sounds good especially if there are security fixes that need to be pushed.

Keith



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Hi Peter,

Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
> stuff to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
> 4.1.6 branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
Obviously a +1 from me! ;-)

But apart from preparing the code we must not forget these two issues:

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127530
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127789

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff
> to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>   - Java 8 Update 172
>   - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>   - Mozilla Build 3.2
>   - NSIS 3.03
>   - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release.
> I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6
> branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)

+1

I can test builds on Linux 64-bit.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Jim Jagielski
As soon as we have a repo branch setup, I'll kick off Linux and macOS builds.

> On Jul 3, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>  - NSIS 3.03
>>  - some minor fixes
>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6 branch.
>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>
> +1
>
> I can test builds on Linux 64-bit.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Matthias Seidel
Am 03.07.2018 um 19:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> As soon as we have a repo branch setup, I'll kick off Linux and macOS builds.

I'll do the Windows builds... ;-)

>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>>  - NSIS 3.03
>>>  - some minor fixes
>>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6 branch.
>>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>> +1
>>
>> I can test builds on Linux 64-bit.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Kay Schenk-2
Hi Kay,

Am 01.07.2018 um 23:51 schrieb Kay Schenk:

> Hi *,
>
> If 4.1.6 would contain some needed security fixes, by all means, it
> needs to be released as soon as possible.
>
> Some questions --
>
> Will Java 8  then be the minimum version to use 4.1.6?
> Because Ant is only used for building, this should not affect any
> end-user requirements, right?
Java 8 will only be used for building. The end user should be able to
use Java 7 or Java 8.
Not sure about Java 6, but that has been EOL for a long time.

(Speaking for Windows, I don't know how the other platforms will be built)

> Would 4.1.6 still be using gstreamer 0.10?

Yes.

>
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 08:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> Hi everbody.
>>
>>
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
>> stuff to get out to the people.
>>
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>
>>
>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>  - NSIS 3.03
>>  - some minor fixes
>>
>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
>> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
>> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>>
>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
>> 4.1.6 branch.
>>
>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3


> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3

What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Matthias Seidel
Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

>
>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everbody.
>>
>>
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>>
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>>
>>
>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Jim Jagielski
The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.

How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore.

> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everbody.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>>>
>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>
>>>
>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>
> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.
>
> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>
> Regards,
>    Matthias
>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Matthias Seidel
What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
long as we use Java 8.

But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
Nothing else.
To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
members!


Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>
> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore.
>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>>>>
>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.
>>
>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Peter Kovacs-3
I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if
they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy
for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version.
Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the
issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in
4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the
front line, but that stuck for me.

In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
has stopped caring at this point in time.


Let us conclude for now:
4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone
for this.
I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.

4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc
CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to
back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
CentOS6.

All these decisions can wait a little longer. For me that is the current
strategy.
@Jim: I hope you see there is a lot of "in the flow" around the topic.
And it depends also on how the project manages in the future.

On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:

> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
> long as we use Java 8.
>
> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
> Nothing else.
> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
> members!
>
>
> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>
>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.
>>>
>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>     Matthias
>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Marcus (OOo)
Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if
> they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy
> for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
> until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
> gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version.
> Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the
> issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in
> 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the
> front line, but that stuck for me.
>
> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>
>
> Let us conclude for now:
> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone
> for this.
> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.

incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.

PS:
CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years.

> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc
> CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to
> back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
> CentOS6.

In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer.
To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.

And it is only relevant on Linux, right?

IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version
we also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much
bigger impact for our users.

My 2 ct.

Marcus



> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
>> long as we use Java 8.
>>
>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>> Nothing else.
>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
>> members!
>>
>>
>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO...
>>> ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>
>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may
>>> be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>> support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>> us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>> eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if
>>>>>> we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>> some stuff to get out to the people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>> it... ;-)
>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>     Matthias


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Kay Schenk-2
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>
>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they
>> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a
>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they
>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can
>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed
>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we
>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I
>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me.
>>
>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>
>>
>> Let us conclude for now:
>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for
>> this.
>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>
>
> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>
> PS:
> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years.
>
> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS
>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port
>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6.
>>
>
> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer.
> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>
> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>
> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we
> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger
> impact for our users.
>

​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux
downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from
32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this
will have overall though.




>
> My 2 ct.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>
>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>
>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>> Nothing else.
>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
>>> members!
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>
>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie,
>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>
>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be
>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support
>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's
>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we
>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to
>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>     Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


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

"Less is MORE."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Marcus (OOo)
Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:

> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>
>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they
>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a
>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they
>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can
>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed
>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we
>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I
>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me.
>>>
>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for
>>> this.
>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>>
>>
>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>
>> PS:
>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years.
>>
>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS
>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port
>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6.
>>>
>>
>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer.
>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>
>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>
>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we
>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger
>> impact for our users.
>
> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux
> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from
> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this
> will have overall though.

I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 discussion
is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a solution could be
indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats I get the following
(2018-01-01 until today).

BTW:
Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the
OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.

OS %
-----------------------
Windows 86,1165
Macintosh 7,8424
Unknown 4,9012
Linux 1,0621
Android 0,0762
BSD 0,0011
Solaris 0,0006

But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will be
for 64-bit.

Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?

Marcus



>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>
>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>
>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>>> Nothing else.
>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
>>>> members!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>
>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie,
>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be
>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support
>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's
>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we
>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to
>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>      Matthias


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Kay Schenk-2
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>
>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if
>>>> they
>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for
>>>> a
>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they
>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic
>>>> can
>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have
>>>> pointed
>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think
>>>> we
>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault
>>>> that I
>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me.
>>>>
>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone
>>>> for
>>>> this.
>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>
>>> PS:
>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5
>>> years.
>>>
>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
>>>
>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc
>>>> CentOS
>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back
>>>> port
>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer.
>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>
>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>
>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version
>>> we
>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much
>>> bigger
>>> impact for our users.
>>>
>>
>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit
>> Linux
>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from
>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact
>> this
>> will have overall though.
>>
>
> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 discussion is
> also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds?


​Somewhat, if we continue using CentOS for the Linux builds. Right now,
gstreamer 1.0 as opposed to 0.10 is only supplied in CentOS 7. CentOS 7.x
is supplied via the RH 7.x pipeline which is 64-bit only. There IS a CentOS
7.x - 32 bit provided by the CentOS community. I don't know if this stream
will continue.




> If so, a solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net
> stats I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>
> BTW:
> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the OS
> where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>

​Yes. It would be better if you could get counts per AOO package name
across all languages.



>
> OS              %
> -----------------------
> Windows         86,1165
> Macintosh        7,8424
> Unknown          4,9012
> Linux            1,0621
> Android          0,0762
> BSD              0,0011
> Solaris          0,0006
>
> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will be
> for 64-bit.
>
> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12.
>>>>> As
>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from
>>>>> other
>>>>> members!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>
>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO...
>>>>>> ie,
>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be
>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us...
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system
>>>>>> and we
>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
>>>>>>>>> stuff to
>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>      Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


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

"Less is MORE."
12