[TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.

The files to be used in testing are at
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.

The files to be tested and reviewed are

 * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
   The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
   library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
   on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
   the Zip file and attempting the procedure.

 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
   The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
   procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
   archive as well.

 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
   Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
   and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
   integrity of the download and, in the case of the
   digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
   the download.  

REQUESTED TESTING

 * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
   .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
   difficulties that may have been encountered.  

 * If you performed the procedure, report
    * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
      account used (administrator or standard user).
    * report whether the procedure succeeded
    * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
      please summarize the problems and how you over-
      came any of them

 * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
   confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
   see as important improvements before making general
   release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
   Apache OpenOffice on Windows.

The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is important in achieving that.

Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.

 - Dennis
 

         

   
 
 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
    [hidden email]
    [hidden email]    +1-206-779-9430
    https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
    X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
Thank you, Pedro.

Thanks for the spell-checking too!  

Yes, the comment about quickstarter was misplaced and should go where there is mention of turning it off.

I did not notice the date change situation when I applied the procedure.  I think the date is preserved in the File Explorer listing. I will double-check the date business.

I also note that

 * there are two list items (3) in the procedure.  That will be corrected.

 * the final location of the material is incorrect, and that will be repaired also.

 - Dennis

PS: The .odt attachment appears on the qa@ list mailings and that archive.  I think it may be good to create a bugzilla issue on this testing so anyone can post and also access attachments.  I will do that today.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 09:08
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
>
> REQUESTED TESTING
>
> * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>   .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>   difficulties that may have been encountered.
>
>
>
> ​Checked md5 and sha256. No problem.​ Assuming advanced users will be
> doing this, they probably have the tools to check. Such tool is not
> included in any program included in the Windows OS.
>
>
>
>
> * If you performed the procedure, report
>    * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>      account used (administrator or standard user).
>    * report whether the procedure succeeded
>    * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>      please summarize the problems and how you over-
>      came any of them
>
>
>
> ​Tested under Windows 7 x64 SP1 using an admin account. Procedure was
> successful. I would recommend to rename the file from dll.new to dll in
> the unzip folder (step​ 16) and _after_ that copy it to \OpenOffice
> 4\program\ (step 15)
>
> This allows the file to retain the date. If the file is renamed after
> moving to \OpenOffice 4\program\ it will change date/time to the current
> date/time.(Obviously the Created date is not modified but from a user
> perspective that is not evident)
>
> ​Following the​ same logic, it would be wiser to copy tl.dll.old to the
> patch folder (or any non-system folder) and if needed rename the file to
> tl.dll _before_ copying to \OpenOffice 4\program\ when reverting the
> patch.
>
>
>
>
> * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>   confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>   see as important improvements before making general
>   release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>   Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>
>
>
> ​There are some typos (and a confusing sentence) in the readme file.
> Please check the attached ODT (created with the patched AOO)​
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Pedro



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Keith N. McKenna
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
Replies in line

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>
> The files to be used in testing are at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>
>  The files to be tested and reviewed are
>
> * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the
> procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed copies
> of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first before
> deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
>
> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip archive
> containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There is a copy of
> the README within the archive as well.
>
> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc *
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 *
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files that
> provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash that can
> be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in the case of
> the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of the download.
>
>
> REQUESTED TESTING
>
> * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and
> .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may have
> been encountered.
>
[knmc]
checked the zip against all of the signatures with the following results:
.md5 matched
.sha256 matched
.asc failed with error not enough information to verify signature.

> * If you performed the procedure, report * the version of Microsoft
> Windows and the type of account used (administrator or standard
> user). * report whether the procedure succeeded * if the procedure
> failed or met with difficulties, please summarize the problems and
> how you over- came any of them
>
[knmc]
performed the procedure successfully on Windows 7 home premium 64 bit
using an administrator account.
Also performed the procedure successfully on the same system using an
standard user account. This was however tedious as most of the steps to
apply the patched .dll required entering the administrator password.

> * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or confusing
> information in the README.  Describe what you see as important
> improvements before making general release of the procedure for use
> by non-expert users of Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>
[knmc]
In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the folder
selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected in step (8)"

On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with information out
of sequence and extraneous information such as not accepting help from
unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information, just out of place in a
process document. Now that I have some available time I will get out my
"blue pencil" and mark-up the document.

One improvement for the average user would be to automate the process
with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do the copy and
rename procedures.

> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
> non-experts is important in achieving that.
>
> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Dennis E. Hamilton [hidden email] [hidden email]
> +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>




signature.asc (548 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:47
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Replies in line
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> >  The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> > * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the
> > procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed copies
> > of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first before
> > deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> > * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip archive
> > containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There is a copy of
> > the README within the archive as well.
> >
> > * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc *
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 *
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files that
> > provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash that can
> > be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in the case of
> > the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of the download.
> >
> >
> > REQUESTED TESTING
> >
> > * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and
> > .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may have
> > been encountered.
> >
> [knmc]
> checked the zip against all of the signatures with the following
> results:
> .md5 matched
> .sha256 matched
> .asc failed with error not enough information to verify signature.
>
[orcmid]

Had you installed my PGP key (in the current KEYS file)?  
How did you download the .asc file?

[ ... ]

> >
> [knmc]
> In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the folder
> selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected in step (8)"
>
> On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with information out
> of sequence and extraneous information such as not accepting help from
> unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information, just out of place in a
> process document. Now that I have some available time I will get out my
> "blue pencil" and mark-up the document.
[orcmid]

Note that someone has already spell-checked the document and I will do so in the future.

And all suggestions are welcome.

>
> One improvement for the average user would be to automate the process
> with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do the copy and
> rename procedures.
[orcmid]

Oh duhhhhhhhhhh!

Yes, there is no reason a .bat file can't be included in the package.  With "Run as Administrator" that should also relieve the pain for folks on non-Administrator accounts who are able to provide/select administrator credentials.

I would leave the longer instructions, perhaps in an Appendix, for those who prefer the manual procedure or who otherwise have reservations/problems about running a script.

Something to work on over the next day or two while also gaining more results from the current testing.


>
> > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> > applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> > more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
> > non-experts is important in achieving that.
> >
> > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Dennis E. Hamilton [hidden email] [hidden email]
> > +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> >
>
>
>



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Keith N. McKenna
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016
>> 12:47 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying
>> openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>>
>> Replies in line
>>
>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is
>>> requested.
>>>
>>> The files to be used in testing are at
>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
>> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>>
>>> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>>>
>>> * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the
>>> procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed
>>> copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first
>>> before deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the
>>> procedure.
>>>
>>> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip
>>> archive containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There
>>> is a copy of the README within the archive as well.
>>>
>>> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc *
>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 *
>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files
>>> that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash
>>> that can be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in
>>> the case of the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy
>>> of the download.
>>>
>>>
>>> REQUESTED TESTING
>>>
>>> * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and
>>> .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may
>>> have been encountered.
>>>
>> [knmc] checked the zip against all of the signatures with the
>> following results: .md5 matched .sha256 matched .asc failed with
>> error not enough information to verify signature.
>>
> [orcmid]
>
> Had you installed my PGP key (in the current KEYS file)?
[knmc]
I imported the entire KEYS from the link provided.
[/knmc]
> How did you download the .asc file?
I used the .asc file from the zip archive.
The problem was that your key has not been certified by anyone. I
changed the owner trust in Kleopatra for your key to require only one
certification and then certified your key with mine. Once I did that the
check passed fine.
[/knmc]
>
> [ ... ]
>>>

>> [knmc] In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the
>> folder selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected
>> in step (8)"
>>
>> On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with
>> information out of sequence and extraneous information such as not
>> accepting help from unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information,
>> just out of place in a process document. Now that I have some
>> available time I will get out my "blue pencil" and mark-up the
>> document.
> [orcmid]
>
> Note that someone has already spell-checked the document and I will
> do so in the future.
>
> And all suggestions are welcome.
>
[knmc]
I have also included an odt version of the document with recorded
changes, both some spell checking changes, moving some things around,
and other suggested changes.
[/knmc]

>>
>> One improvement for the average user would be to automate the
>> process with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do
>> the copy and rename procedures.
> [orcmid]
>
> Oh duhhhhhhhhhh!
>
> Yes, there is no reason a .bat file can't be included in the package.
> With "Run as Administrator" that should also relieve the pain for
> folks on non-Administrator accounts who are able to provide/select
> administrator credentials.
>
> I would leave the longer instructions, perhaps in an Appendix, for
> those who prefer the manual procedure or who otherwise have
> reservations/problems about running a script.
>
[knmc]
Let me try my hand at rewriting the manual instructions. I used to write
process sheets for a living be interesting to see if my engineering
skills are still up to the task.
[/knmc]

> Something to work on over the next day or two while also gaining more
> results from the current testing.
>
>
>>
>>> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users
>>> in applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience
>>> of more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
>>> non-experts is important in achieving that.
>>>
>>> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you
>>> provide.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Dennis E. Hamilton [hidden email] [hidden email]
>>> +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456
>>> 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>>>
>>
>>
>>


README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.odt (25K) Download Attachment
signature.asc (548 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>
> The files to be used in testing are at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>
> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>
>   * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
>     The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
>     library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
>     on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
>     the Zip file and attempting the procedure.

wow, really? I think I need much more time for this than an average
evening. ;-) I'll do the README steps on Sunday.

>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>     The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
>     procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
>     archive as well.

- I've exchanged the DLL
- Created a new text and presentation document with simple content.
- Both were reopened successfully.

Anything more to test?

>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc

I don't know if this is OK or still bad:

gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key ID
D456628A
gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
<[hidden email]>"
gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E. Hamilton) <[hidden email]>"
gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code signing) <[hidden email]>"
gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
<[hidden email]>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.

>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5

Windows 10 Home (Version 1511):
I've visually compared the MD5 hashes from the ZIP and MD5 file
--> OK

Linux:
$ md5sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.md5
--> OK

>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256

Windows 10 Home (Version 1511):
I've visually compared the SHA256 hashes from the ZIP and SHA256 file
--> OK

Linux:
$ sha256sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.sha256
--> OK

> REQUESTED TESTING
>
>   * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>     .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>     difficulties that may have been encountered.

Please remove the new line at the end of the MD5 file. Otherwise it
doesn't work on Linux:

md5sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
: No such file or directory.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
: FAILED open or read.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 listed file could not be read

>   * If you performed the procedure, report
>      * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>        account used (administrator or standard user).

Windows 10 Home (Version 1511)
Administrator

>      * report whether the procedure succeeded

Yes

>      * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>        please summarize the problems and how you over-
>        came any of them

To do a quick check, I've used a shortcut:

I've used the Total Commander (started as administrator, a normal user
cannot modify anything in the OpenOffice directory) and exchanged the DLL.

>   * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>     confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>     see as important improvements before making general
>     release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>     Apache OpenOffice on Windows.

Marcus

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Kay Schenk-2


On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>>
>> The files to be used in testing are at
>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>
>>

hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.

Should we get started on these?

>> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>>
>>   * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
>>     The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
>>     library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
>>     on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
>>     the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
>
> wow, really? I think I need much more time for this than an average
> evening. ;-) I'll do the README steps on Sunday.
>
>>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>>     The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
>>     procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
>>     archive as well.
>
> - I've exchanged the DLL
> - Created a new text and presentation document with simple content.
> - Both were reopened successfully.
>
> Anything more to test?
>
>>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>
> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
>
> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key ID
> D456628A
> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
> <[hidden email]>"
> gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E. Hamilton) <[hidden email]>"
> gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code signing) <[hidden email]>"
> gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
> <[hidden email]>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> owner.

I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing to
specify "trust" locally.

See:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html



>
>>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
>
> Windows 10 Home (Version 1511):
> I've visually compared the MD5 hashes from the ZIP and MD5 file
> --> OK
>
> Linux:
> $ md5sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.md5
> --> OK
>
>>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
>
> Windows 10 Home (Version 1511):
> I've visually compared the SHA256 hashes from the ZIP and SHA256 file
> --> OK
>
> Linux:
> $ sha256sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.sha256
> --> OK
>
>> REQUESTED TESTING
>>
>>   * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>>     .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>>     difficulties that may have been encountered.
>
> Please remove the new line at the end of the MD5 file. Otherwise it
> doesn't work on Linux:
>
> md5sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
> : No such file or directory.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> : FAILED open or read.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 listed file could not be read
>
>>   * If you performed the procedure, report
>>      * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>>        account used (administrator or standard user).
>
> Windows 10 Home (Version 1511)
> Administrator
>
>>      * report whether the procedure succeeded
>
> Yes
>
>>      * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>>        please summarize the problems and how you over-
>>        came any of them
>
> To do a quick check, I've used a shortcut:
>
> I've used the Total Commander (started as administrator, a normal user
> cannot modify anything in the OpenOffice directory) and exchanged the DLL.
>
>>   * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>>     confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>>     see as important improvements before making general
>>     release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>>     Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>
> Marcus
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

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

"Time spent with cats is never wasted."
                   -- Sigmund Freud

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Marcus (OOo)
Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>>>
>>> The files to be used in testing are at
>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>>
>>>
>
> hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.
>
> Should we get started on these?

it depends what we want that they should contain. The ZIP file for
Windows contains a LICENSE and NOTICE file as well as an ASC file for
the DLL. As it is only a patch IMHO we don't need to provide another
LICENSE and NOTICE file which is already available in the OpenOffice
installation. Also the ASC is not necessary as we provide it already
(together with MD5 and SHA256) for the whole ZIP file.

That means that only the README and library file remains.

When the README for Windows keep its length then I don't want to copy
this on the dowload webpage. ;-)

So, when we put the README for all platforms in their ZIP files then we
can just put a pointer to it on the download webpage and thats it.

To cut a long story short:
I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.

>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>
>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
>>
>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key ID
>> D456628A
>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
>> <[hidden email]>"
>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E. Hamilton)<[hidden email]>"
>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code signing)<[hidden email]>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
>> <[hidden email]>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>> owner.
>
> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing to
> specify "trust" locally.
>
> See:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html

OK, thanks.

Marcus


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Carl Marcum
On 08/04/2016 06:52 PM, Marcus wrote:

> Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>>>>
>>>> The files to be used in testing are at
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.
>>
>> Should we get started on these?
>
> it depends what we want that they should contain. The ZIP file for
> Windows contains a LICENSE and NOTICE file as well as an ASC file for
> the DLL. As it is only a patch IMHO we don't need to provide another
> LICENSE and NOTICE file which is already available in the OpenOffice
> installation. Also the ASC is not necessary as we provide it already
> (together with MD5 and SHA256) for the whole ZIP file.
>
> That means that only the README and library file remains.
>
> When the README for Windows keep its length then I don't want to copy
> this on the dowload webpage. ;-)
>
> So, when we put the README for all platforms in their ZIP files then
> we can just put a pointer to it on the download webpage and thats it.
>
> To cut a long story short:
> I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.
>
>>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>
>>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
>>>
>>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key ID
>>> D456628A
>>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E. Hamilton)<[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code
>>> signing)<[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>>> owner.
>>
>> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing to
>> specify "trust" locally.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
>

signing Dennis' key locally worked for me.
On Linux I use:
gpg --default-key 9553BF9A --sign-key D456628A

If the key you want to sign it with is already the default key you can
omit the "--default-key 9553BF9A" part.
Sometimes you may have to prefix the ID's with "0x" to denote hex.

If you trust this is Dennis' key you can send his key back with your sig
now attached and it will have more trust.
gpg --send-key 0xD456628A

If a few people do it the warning should go away. Web-of-trust  :)

Carl


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
For tracking the [TESTING] of the 4.1.2-patch1 binary for windows, I have created task Issue 127065,
<https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.  Comment 7 there already speaks to the untrusted identification situation.

I am adding an abridged version of this message from Carl with the part relevant to certificate trust.  Note that most of us who have worked on 4.1.2-patch1 and provided digital signatures will find that identity will be reported as untrusted based on the Web-of-Trust technique PGP software uses.  We can, of course, verify the fingerprints and Apache account identity and certify each other.  That will change the status for those of us in this particular circle but not necessarily for anyone who does not already trust the identification of enough of us.

I don't think there is any way to get into this in our README files.  However, this is useful for any future contributions we might make to the page at <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> or anything supplemental that is oriented to the users of Apache OpenOffice and their particular range of skills.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 03:30
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> On 08/04/2016 06:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
[ ... ]

> >>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >>>
> >>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
> >>>
> >>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> >>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key
> ID
> >>> D456628A
> >>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
> >>> <[hidden email]>"
> >>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E.
> Hamilton)<[hidden email]>"
> >>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code
> >>> signing)<[hidden email]>"
> >>> gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
> >>> <[hidden email]>"
> >>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> >>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to
> the
> >>> owner.
> >>
> >> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing
> to
> >> specify "trust" locally.
> >>
> >> See:
> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
> >
>
> signing Dennis' key locally worked for me.
> On Linux I use:
> gpg --default-key 9553BF9A --sign-key D456628A
>
> If the key you want to sign it with is already the default key you can
> omit the "--default-key 9553BF9A" part.
> Sometimes you may have to prefix the ID's with "0x" to denote hex.
>
> If you trust this is Dennis' key you can send his key back with your sig
> now attached and it will have more trust.
> gpg --send-key 0xD456628A
>
> If a few people do it the warning should go away. Web-of-trust  :)
>
> Carl
[orcmid]

The warning will go away for us who have created a mutual Web-of-Trust but it won't help those who are not in that circle or have not somehow determined to trust in it themselves.  This is still useful advice about how to do it.

PS: I don't think the dist-level KEYS file is updated automatically, so the release KEYS set needs to be refreshed to work.  (We can check that by waiting for a while to see if Carl's trust of Dennis's key shows up.)


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Carl Marcum
Am 08/05/2016 12:30 PM, schrieb Carl Marcum:

> On 08/04/2016 06:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>>> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>>>>>
>>>>> The files to be used in testing are at
>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.
>>>
>>> Should we get started on these?
>>
>> it depends what we want that they should contain. The ZIP file for
>> Windows contains a LICENSE and NOTICE file as well as an ASC file for
>> the DLL. As it is only a patch IMHO we don't need to provide another
>> LICENSE and NOTICE file which is already available in the OpenOffice
>> installation. Also the ASC is not necessary as we provide it already
>> (together with MD5 and SHA256) for the whole ZIP file.
>>
>> That means that only the README and library file remains.
>>
>> When the README for Windows keep its length then I don't want to copy
>> this on the dowload webpage. ;-)
>>
>> So, when we put the README for all platforms in their ZIP files then
>> we can just put a pointer to it on the download webpage and thats it.
>>
>> To cut a long story short:
>> I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.
>>
>>>>> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
>>>>
>>>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>>>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key ID
>>>> D456628A
>>>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
>>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>>> gpg: aka "orcmid (Dennis E. Hamilton)<[hidden email]>"
>>>> gpg: aka "orcmid Apache (code signing)<[hidden email]>"
>>>> gpg: aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
>>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>>>> owner.
>>>
>>> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing to
>>> specify "trust" locally.
>>>
>>> See:
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
>>
>
> signing Dennis' key locally worked for me.
> On Linux I use:
> gpg --default-key 9553BF9A --sign-key D456628A
>
> If the key you want to sign it with is already the default key you can
> omit the "--default-key 9553BF9A" part.
> Sometimes you may have to prefix the ID's with "0x" to denote hex.
>
> If you trust this is Dennis' key you can send his key back with your sig
> now attached and it will have more trust.
> gpg --send-key 0xD456628A
>
> If a few people do it the warning should go away. Web-of-trust :)

thanks a lot for these details. :-)

Marcus


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Carl Marcum
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
On 08/05/2016 12:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> For tracking the [TESTING] of the 4.1.2-patch1 binary for windows, I have created task Issue 127065,
> <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.  Comment 7 there already speaks to the untrusted identification situation.
>
> I am adding an abridged version of this message from Carl with the part relevant to certificate trust.  Note that most of us who have worked on 4.1.2-patch1 and provided digital signatures will find that identity will be reported as untrusted based on the Web-of-Trust technique PGP software uses.  We can, of course, verify the fingerprints and Apache account identity and certify each other.  That will change the status for those of us in this particular circle but not necessarily for anyone who does not already trust the identification of enough of us.
>
> I don't think there is any way to get into this in our README files.  However, this is useful for any future contributions we might make to the page at <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> or anything supplemental that is oriented to the users of Apache OpenOffice and their particular range of skills.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 03:30
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>>
>> On 08/04/2016 06:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>>>>>     * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>>>>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key
>> ID
>>>>> D456628A
>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
>>>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>>>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E.
>> Hamilton)<[hidden email]>"
>>>>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code
>>>>> signing)<[hidden email]>"
>>>>> gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
>>>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>>>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to
>> the
>>>>> owner.
>>>> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing
>> to
>>>> specify "trust" locally.
>>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
>> signing Dennis' key locally worked for me.
>> On Linux I use:
>> gpg --default-key 9553BF9A --sign-key D456628A
>>
>> If the key you want to sign it with is already the default key you can
>> omit the "--default-key 9553BF9A" part.
>> Sometimes you may have to prefix the ID's with "0x" to denote hex.
>>
>> If you trust this is Dennis' key you can send his key back with your sig
>> now attached and it will have more trust.
>> gpg --send-key 0xD456628A
>>
>> If a few people do it the warning should go away. Web-of-trust  :)
>>
>> Carl
> [orcmid]
>
> The warning will go away for us who have created a mutual Web-of-Trust but it won't help those who are not in that circle or have not somehow determined to trust in it themselves.  This is still useful advice about how to do it.
>
> PS: I don't think the dist-level KEYS file is updated automatically, so the release KEYS set needs to be refreshed to work.  (We can check that by waiting for a while to see if Carl's trust of Dennis's key shows up.)
>
Dennis,

Yes I think I over simplified that.

Thanks for clarifying.

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: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
Feedback for the .zip file:

Do you have a reason in mind for the "apply" in the file name? I would
delete this as I don't see a benefit and it would shorten the file name.

When extracting a ZIP file I cannot stand it when no subdirectory is
included and the files are extracted where the current directory is at
the moment. So, I've to search for the new files.

Therefore please include a "files" dir (or similar name) into the ZIP file.



Feedback for the README file.

Line 25:
It should be improve into "please consult a knowledgable person (e.g.,
family member work colleauge, acquaintance) that is able to assist you".
At least for me it sounds better.

Line 41.
Put all OPTIONAL things at the section end.

Line 44/45:
old: "... that are part of the system.installed."
new: "... that are part of the installed system."

Line 64/65:
One "which" is double.

Line 86-89:
I don't know if this is necessary for this process. I think it would
just foster help requests to the dev@ mailing list.

Line 111:
I would write ", the .zip file is available to use.".

Line 114:
One "or" is double.

Line 131:
No, there is no folder extracted. Please include one (see at the top of
this mail).

Line 147:
IMHO this was stated already. Please don't rename the new file in the
ZIP file. Otherwise the user has to do an additional file rename which
should not be done.

Line 153:
The same for the ASC file.

Line 183 and 186:
Both parts can be described together to save 1 step.

Line 208:
This step should be avoided (see at the top of this mail).

Line 222-231:
As stated previously (line 86-89).

Line 240:
To give (again) the hint that OpenOffice should be closed before
renaming the files would be nice to the user.


I hope this feedback is helpful for you.

Marcus



Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>
> The files to be used in testing are at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>
> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>
>   * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
>     The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
>     library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
>     on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
>     the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
>
>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>     The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
>     procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
>     archive as well.
>
>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
>   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
>     Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
>     and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
>     integrity of the download and, in the case of the
>     digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
>     the download.
>
> REQUESTED TESTING
>
>   * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>     .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>     difficulties that may have been encountered.
>
>   * If you performed the procedure, report
>      * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>        account used (administrator or standard user).
>      * report whether the procedure succeeded
>      * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>        please summarize the problems and how you over-
>        came any of them
>
>   * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>     confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>     see as important improvements before making general
>     release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>     Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>
> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is important in achieving that.
>
> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 09:21
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Feedback for the .zip file:
>
> Do you have a reason in mind for the "apply" in the file name? I would
> delete this as I don't see a benefit and it would shorten the file name.
[orcmid]

I used the apply suffix to allow for there being a (semi-)automatic version that worked automatically later.  I would then propose hotfix or something for that.  This allowed for both to exist at some point.

I'd rather not change that now since folks know to look for it by that name, it is used in the readme, etc.

>
> When extracting a ZIP file I cannot stand it when no subdirectory is
> included and the files are extracted where the current directory is at
> the moment. So, I've to search for the new files.
[orcmid]

The Extract ... tool for Windows automatically creates a folder to put everything into, although it will be in the same folder as the .zip.  So having a folder in there simply adds an extra level.  That is using the Windows extract.

Other tools, such as WinZip also allow the user to choose a folder destination, although it might take more work, and knowledgeable users of Zip tools know how to tell what to do that works according to the README.

>
> Therefore please include a "files" dir (or similar name) into the ZIP
> file.
[orcmid]

The normal choice would be something like 4.1.2-patch1-apply :).
>
>
>
> Feedback for the README file.
[orcmid]

Thank you.  I will go over all of the suggestions on the README that have come in so far, and provide an update today.


>
> Line 25:
> It should be improve into "please consult a knowledgable person (e.g.,
> family member work colleauge, acquaintance) that is able to assist you".
> At least for me it sounds better.
>
> Line 41.
> Put all OPTIONAL things at the section end.
>
> Line 44/45:
> old: "... that are part of the system.installed."
> new: "... that are part of the installed system."
>
> Line 64/65:
> One "which" is double.
>
> Line 86-89:
> I don't know if this is necessary for this process. I think it would
> just foster help requests to the dev@ mailing list.
>
> Line 111:
> I would write ", the .zip file is available to use.".
>
> Line 114:
> One "or" is double.
>
> Line 131:
> No, there is no folder extracted. Please include one (see at the top of
> this mail).
[orcmid]

Did you not use the Windows "Extract ..." action on the context menu?

>
> Line 147:
> IMHO this was stated already. Please don't rename the new file in the
> ZIP file. Otherwise the user has to do an additional file rename which
> should not be done.
[orcmid]

That must be a misunderstanding.  I don't propose anything like that.

>
> Line 153:
> The same for the ASC file.
>
> Line 183 and 186:
> Both parts can be described together to save 1 step.
>
> Line 208:
> This step should be avoided (see at the top of this mail).
>
> Line 222-231:
> As stated previously (line 86-89).
>
> Line 240:
> To give (again) the hint that OpenOffice should be closed before
> renaming the files would be nice to the user.
>
>
> I hope this feedback is helpful for you.
[orcmid]

Yes, thank you.  I will look more closely when making the edits.

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> > The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> >   * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
> >     The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
> >     library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
> >     on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
> >     the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> >     The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
> >     procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
> >     archive as well.
> >
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
> >     Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
> >     and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
> >     integrity of the download and, in the case of the
> >     digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
> >     the download.
> >
> > REQUESTED TESTING
> >
> >   * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
> >     .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
> >     difficulties that may have been encountered.
> >
> >   * If you performed the procedure, report
> >      * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
> >        account used (administrator or standard user).
> >      * report whether the procedure succeeded
> >      * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
> >        please summarize the problems and how you over-
> >        came any of them
> >
> >   * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
> >     confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
> >     see as important improvements before making general
> >     release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
> >     Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> >
> > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-
> knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is
> important in achieving that.
> >
> > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Marcus (OOo)
Am 08/07/2016 07:30 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marcus [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 09:21
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>>
>> Feedback for the .zip file:
>>
>> Do you have a reason in mind for the "apply" in the file name? I would
>> delete this as I don't see a benefit and it would shorten the file name.
> [orcmid]
>
> I used the apply suffix to allow for there being a (semi-)automatic version that worked automatically later.  I would then propose hotfix or something for that.  This allowed for both to exist at some point.
>
> I'd rather not change that now since folks know to look for it by that name, it is used in the readme, etc.

it's just a test version which can still be changed. So, I would shorten
the name it and edit also the README.

>> When extracting a ZIP file I cannot stand it when no subdirectory is
>> included and the files are extracted where the current directory is at
>> the moment. So, I've to search for the new files.
> [orcmid]
>
> The Extract ... tool for Windows automatically creates a folder to put everything into, although it will be in the same folder as the .zip.  So having a folder in there simply adds an extra level.  That is using the Windows extract.

Ah, OK. I always use "Extract here".

> Other tools, such as WinZip also allow the user to choose a folder destination, although it might take more work, and knowledgeable users of Zip tools know how to tell what to do that works according to the README.

Marcus



>> Therefore please include a "files" dir (or similar name) into the ZIP
>> file.
> [orcmid]
>
> The normal choice would be something like 4.1.2-patch1-apply :).
>>
>>
>>
>> Feedback for the README file.
> [orcmid]
>
> Thank you.  I will go over all of the suggestions on the README that have come in so far, and provide an update today.
>
>
>>
>> Line 25:
>> It should be improve into "please consult a knowledgable person (e.g.,
>> family member work colleauge, acquaintance) that is able to assist you".
>> At least for me it sounds better.
>>
>> Line 41.
>> Put all OPTIONAL things at the section end.
>>
>> Line 44/45:
>> old: "... that are part of the system.installed."
>> new: "... that are part of the installed system."
>>
>> Line 64/65:
>> One "which" is double.
>>
>> Line 86-89:
>> I don't know if this is necessary for this process. I think it would
>> just foster help requests to the dev@ mailing list.
>>
>> Line 111:
>> I would write ", the .zip file is available to use.".
>>
>> Line 114:
>> One "or" is double.
>>
>> Line 131:
>> No, there is no folder extracted. Please include one (see at the top of
>> this mail).
> [orcmid]
>
> Did you not use the Windows "Extract ..." action on the context menu?
>
>>
>> Line 147:
>> IMHO this was stated already. Please don't rename the new file in the
>> ZIP file. Otherwise the user has to do an additional file rename which
>> should not be done.
> [orcmid]
>
> That must be a misunderstanding.  I don't propose anything like that.
>
>>
>> Line 153:
>> The same for the ASC file.
>>
>> Line 183 and 186:
>> Both parts can be described together to save 1 step.
>>
>> Line 208:
>> This step should be avoided (see at the top of this mail).
>>
>> Line 222-231:
>> As stated previously (line 86-89).
>>
>> Line 240:
>> To give (again) the hint that OpenOffice should be closed before
>> renaming the files would be nice to the user.
>>
>>
>> I hope this feedback is helpful for you.
> [orcmid]
>
> Yes, thank you.  I will look more closely when making the edits.
>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>>>
>>> The files to be used in testing are at
>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
>> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>>
>>> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>>>
>>>    * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
>>>      The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
>>>      library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
>>>      on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
>>>      the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
>>>
>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>>>      The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
>>>      procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
>>>      archive as well.
>>>
>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
>>>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
>>>      Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
>>>      and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
>>>      integrity of the download and, in the case of the
>>>      digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
>>>      the download.
>>>
>>> REQUESTED TESTING
>>>
>>>    * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>>>      .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>>>      difficulties that may have been encountered.
>>>
>>>    * If you performed the procedure, report
>>>       * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>>>         account used (administrator or standard user).
>>>       * report whether the procedure succeeded
>>>       * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>>>         please summarize the problems and how you over-
>>>         came any of them
>>>
>>>    * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>>>      confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>>>      see as important improvements before making general
>>>      release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>>>      Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>>>
>>> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
>> applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-
>> knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is
>> important in achieving that.
>>>
>>> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>
>>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>>>>
>>>> The files to be used in testing are at
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
>>>> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> hmmm...well no zips for Mac, Linux32, or Linux 64 -- yet.
>>
>> Should we get started on these?
>>
>
> it depends what we want that they should contain. The ZIP file for Windows
> contains a LICENSE and NOTICE file as well as an ASC file for the DLL. As
> it is only a patch IMHO we don't need to provide another LICENSE and NOTICE
> file which is already available in the OpenOffice installation. Also the
> ASC is not necessary as we provide it already (together with MD5 and
> SHA256) for the whole ZIP file.
>

​I'm Ok with the extra "asc" on the library especially if the supplier of
the library is not the same person who supplies the entire  zip.​


​I'm not convinced we need LICENSE and NOTICE either.

In any case, we need to come to a conclusion about what will be included
and by whom.
These zips all need to be signed, so only AOO developers who have already
supplied keys on:

http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/KEYS

can sign these. Of course, it's not TOO late to generate a release key and
add names to the list. :)



> That means that only the README and library file remains.
>
> When the README for Windows keep its length then I don't want to copy this
> on the dowload webpage. ;-)
>
> So, when we put the README for all platforms in their ZIP files then we
> can just put a pointer to it on the download webpage and thats it.
>
> To cut a long story short:
> I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.
>
>    * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
>>>
>>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key ID
>>> D456628A
>>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid (Dennis E. Hamilton)<[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg:                 aka "orcmid Apache (code signing)<[hidden email]
>>> >"
>>> gpg:                 aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
>>> <[hidden email]>"
>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>>> owner.
>>>
>>
>> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing to
>> specify "trust" locally.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
>>
>
> OK, thanks.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


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

"Time spent with cats is never wasted."
                                -- Sigmund Freud
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has been introduced into the files (and the .zip) at
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.

This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and Keith McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be discussed in replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at
<https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.


By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on Windows.  In some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server where the above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to accommodate for this incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the procedure, please indicate whether there are (now) difficulties using the text files, especially on Windows.

Users of Linux systems may have difficulties with some utilities for which the Windows versions of the same tool (e.g., md5sum) do not produce Linux-acceptable line endings.  It is useful to know if that is still the case.  The files have been confirmed to be usable using the utilities built for use on Windows.

For future versions, the use of HTML instead of text will be considered.  HTML does not have white-space incompatibility problems across different platforms. The HTML will also be digitally-signed as a means of verifying its authenticity.

In addition to possibly using HTML as a better form for cross-platform use of text, attention will now move toward introducing scripts that automatically apply the change, replacing all of steps 9-18.

Meanwhile, it is valuable to continue testing that the replacement file produces no regression or introduction of any defects not seen using an unmodified Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.

 - Dennis


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 20:31
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
>
> The files to be used in testing are at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>
> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>
>  * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
>    The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
>    library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
>    on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
>    the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
>
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>    The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
>    procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
>    archive as well.
>
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
>    Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
>    and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
>    integrity of the download and, in the case of the
>    digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
>    the download.
>
> REQUESTED TESTING
>
>  * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>    .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>    difficulties that may have been encountered.
>
>  * If you performed the procedure, report
>     * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>       account used (administrator or standard user).
>     * report whether the procedure succeeded
>     * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>       please summarize the problems and how you over-
>       came any of them
>
>  * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>    confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>    see as important improvements before making general
>    release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>    Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>
> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-
> knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is
> important in achieving that.
>
> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
>     [hidden email]
>     [hidden email]    +1-206-779-9430
>     https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
>     X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
Beta version 0.1.0 is now nearing completion.

It will include two scripts, one for applying the patch, the other for reverting the patch.

The .zip will also have a copy of the original 4.1.2 tl.dll as well as the new one.  These are used in the procedures to verify the files that are present in the OpenOffice configuration in order to apply the patch and also to remove it.

Next steps:
 * Additional path testing of the two scripts and verification that operation on Windows XP and on Windows 10 work as expected.

 * Updating of the README to reflect the availability of the batch-file scripts as well as the manual procedure if ever needed.

 * Although the Zips already carry executable code (i.e., DLLs) there may be some Antivirus push-back where the policy is to not allow .zip files with scripts in them.  The README will also have to address that possibility.

 - Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 09:58
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has been
> introduced into the files (and the .zip) at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>
> This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and Keith
> McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be discussed
> in replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at
> <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.
>
>
> By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on Windows.
> In some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server
> where the above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to
> accommodate for this incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the
> procedure, please indicate whether there are (now) difficulties using
> the text files, especially on Windows.
>
> Users of Linux systems may have difficulties with some utilities for
> which the Windows versions of the same tool (e.g., md5sum) do not
> produce Linux-acceptable line endings.  It is useful to know if that is
> still the case.  The files have been confirmed to be usable using the
> utilities built for use on Windows.
>
> For future versions, the use of HTML instead of text will be considered.
> HTML does not have white-space incompatibility problems across different
> platforms. The HTML will also be digitally-signed as a means of
> verifying its authenticity.
>
> In addition to possibly using HTML as a better form for cross-platform
> use of text, attention will now move toward introducing scripts that
> automatically apply the change, replacing all of steps 9-18.
>
> Meanwhile, it is valuable to continue testing that the replacement file
> produces no regression or introduction of any defects not seen using an
> unmodified Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 20:31
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Cc: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> > The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> >  * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
> >    The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
> >    library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
> >    on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
> >    the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> >    The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
> >    procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
> >    archive as well.
> >
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
> >    Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
> >    and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
> >    integrity of the download and, in the case of the
> >    digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
> >    the download.
> >
> > REQUESTED TESTING
> >
> >  * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
> >    .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
> >    difficulties that may have been encountered.
> >
> >  * If you performed the procedure, report
> >     * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
> >       account used (administrator or standard user).
> >     * report whether the procedure succeeded
> >     * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
> >       please summarize the problems and how you over-
> >       came any of them
> >
> >  * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
> >    confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
> >    see as important improvements before making general
> >    release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
> >    Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> >
> > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> > applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> more-
> > knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is
> > important in achieving that.
> >
> > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> >     [hidden email]
> >     [hidden email]    +1-206-779-9430
> >     https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> >     X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
BETA 0.1.0 WITH AUTOMATED SCRIPTS IS NOW AVAILABLE

The scripts make life much easier, since users don't have to go hunting for anything and digging around in operating-system locations.

You should be able to go through the procedure that uses the automated steps pretty easily.

It is very important to know the difficulties that arise or whether there were none.

The material is available at
<http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.

 - Dennis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 18:01
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Beta version 0.1.0 is now nearing completion.
>
> It will include two scripts, one for applying the patch, the other for
> reverting the patch.
>
> The .zip will also have a copy of the original 4.1.2 tl.dll as well as
> the new one.  These are used in the procedures to verify the files that
> are present in the OpenOffice configuration in order to apply the patch
> and also to remove it.
>
> Next steps:
>  * Additional path testing of the two scripts and verification that
> operation on Windows XP and on Windows 10 work as expected.
[orcmid]

Done
 
It is also much easier to work through the patch checks using the scripts.
>
>  * Updating of the README to reflect the availability of the batch-file
> scripts as well as the manual procedure if ever needed.
[orcmid]

Done

>
>  * Although the Zips already carry executable code (i.e., DLLs) there
> may be some Antivirus push-back where the policy is to not allow .zip
> files with scripts in them.  The README will also have to address that
> possibility.
[orcmid]

I forgot that at the last minute.  I will put that into the next version.  Meanwhile, those who check these procedures should report any AV objections they ran into.


>
>  - Dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 09:58
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Cc: [hidden email]
> > Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >
> > Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has been
> > introduced into the files (and the .zip) at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> > patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> > This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and
> Keith
> > McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be discussed
> > in replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at
> > <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.
> >
> >
> > By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on
> Windows.
> > In some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server
> > where the above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to
> > accommodate for this incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the
> > procedure, please indicate whether there are (now) difficulties using
> > the text files, especially on Windows.
> >
> > Users of Linux systems may have difficulties with some utilities for
> > which the Windows versions of the same tool (e.g., md5sum) do not
> > produce Linux-acceptable line endings.  It is useful to know if that
> is
> > still the case.  The files have been confirmed to be usable using the
> > utilities built for use on Windows.
> >
> > For future versions, the use of HTML instead of text will be
> considered.
> > HTML does not have white-space incompatibility problems across
> different
> > platforms. The HTML will also be digitally-signed as a means of
> > verifying its authenticity.
> >
> > In addition to possibly using HTML as a better form for cross-platform
> > use of text, attention will now move toward introducing scripts that
> > automatically apply the change, replacing all of steps 9-18.
> >
> > Meanwhile, it is valuable to continue testing that the replacement
> file
> > produces no regression or introduction of any defects not seen using
> an
> > unmodified Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 20:31
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > Cc: [hidden email]
> > > Subject: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> > >
> > > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> > >
> > > The files to be used in testing are at
> > > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> > patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> > >
> > > The files to be tested and reviewed are
> > >
> > >  * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
> > >    The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
> > >    library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
> > >    on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
> > >    the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> > >
> > >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> > >    The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
> > >    procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
> > >    archive as well.
> > >
> > >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> > >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
> > >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
> > >    Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
> > >    and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
> > >    integrity of the download and, in the case of the
> > >    digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
> > >    the download.
> > >
> > > REQUESTED TESTING
> > >
> > >  * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
> > >    .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
> > >    difficulties that may have been encountered.
> > >
> > >  * If you performed the procedure, report
> > >     * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
> > >       account used (administrator or standard user).
> > >     * report whether the procedure succeeded
> > >     * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
> > >       please summarize the problems and how you over-
> > >       came any of them
> > >
> > >  * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
> > >    confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
> > >    see as important improvements before making general
> > >    release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
> > >    Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> > >
> > > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> > > applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> > more-
> > > knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is
> > > important in achieving that.
> > >
> > > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> > >
> > >  - Dennis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> > >     [hidden email]
> > >     [hidden email]    +1-206-779-9430
> > >     https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> > >     X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > 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]


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by Keith N. McKenna


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:47
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>
> Replies in line
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
[ ... ]

> [knmc]
> performed the procedure successfully on Windows 7 home premium 64 bit
> using an administrator account.
> Also performed the procedure successfully on the same system using an
> standard user account. This was however tedious as most of the steps to
> apply the patched .dll required entering the administrator password.
>
> > * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or confusing
> > information in the README.  Describe what you see as important
> > improvements before making general release of the procedure for use
> > by non-expert users of Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> >
> [knmc]
> In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the folder
> selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected in step (8)"
>
> On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with information out
> of sequence and extraneous information such as not accepting help from
> unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information, just out of place in a
> process document. Now that I have some available time I will get out my
> "blue pencil" and mark-up the document.
>
> One improvement for the average user would be to automate the process
> with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do the copy and
> rename procedures.
[orcmid]

There are now .bat files for automated application and reversal of the patch.  It will be valuable to know how well those work better on Windows 7 now, and especially on the standard user account.

The editing of the README is also intended to alleviate some of your other concerns.

It is valuable to know whether this is now good enough from your experienced perspective.

 - Dennis

>
> > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> > applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> > more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
> > non-experts is important in achieving that.
> >
> > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Dennis E. Hamilton [hidden email] [hidden email]
> > +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> >
>
>
>



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

123