openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:03:20 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.mail@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 15:26
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PACKAGING 4.1.2-patch1 Binaries] (was RE: [TESTING]
> Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows)
> 
> Am 08/09/2016 11:12 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> > [top posting]
> > I'm in the process of trying to "sync" instructions for Linux32,
> > Linux64, and MacOSX at the moment. As far as instructions on the
> actual
> > HOTFIX page, we need to have just a "general" instruction for ALL zips
> > that simply says -- "Unzip this package to some folder of your
> choosing
> > and read the README that's included." Everything else should be in the
> > various READMEs for each platform.
> 
> yes, this shortens the webpage a lot.
> 
> > I should be done with all edits by this evening for a final review
> > before zipping and signing.
> 
> When the ZIP files are ready, I can do the checks for Linux and Windows.
> 
> Marcus
[orcmid] 

I have a working Windows batch-file script for installing the patch, but I have not updated
the documentation yet and I need to do tests on Windows XP to make certain that the script
works there too.

The next update for Windows will be version 0.1.0 and be beta level.

There might be an 0.2.0 if the README is changed from .txt to .html to get around line-ending
incompatibilities depending on what platform is used for what.

Once those clear, we can look at adjustments for 1.0.0 and general release after a little
regression checking.

I suspect the general will happen on Thursday or Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> > On 08/05/2016 09:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >> Branching off the part that is not about the Windows 4.1.2-patch1
> [TESTING].
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.mail@wtnet.de]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 15:52
> >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >>>
> >>> Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >> [ ... ]
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >> [orcmid]
> >>
> >> I think there is a misunderstanding.  Two matters:
> >>
> >>   1. The use of LICENSE is required by the ALv2 itself, and the ASF
> practice is to include NOTICE as well on binary distributions.  The
> patch qualifies, especially when it is moved to general distribution.
> It is also easy and harmless to provide.
> >>
> >>   2. The reason for preserving the .asc on the shared-library binary
> is because it authenticates with respect to who produced it and
> establishes that it has not been modified as supplied in the package (or
> as the result of some glitch in creation of the Zip).  It provides a
> level of accountability and, also, auditability.
> >>
> >> Even though few people will check all of these, they remain possible
> to be checked.  Since this is a matter of security vulnerabilities and
> involves elevation of privilege to perform, I believe it is important to
> demonstrate diligence and care, so that users have confidence in this
> procedure to the extent they are comfortable.  Also, if it becomes
> necessary to troubleshoot a problem with these patch applications, we
> have the means to authenticate what they are using to ensure there are
> no counterfeits being offered to users.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >> [orcmid]
> >>
> >> Yes, that seems like a fine idea.  The README can be linked the same
> way the .md5, .sha256, and .asc are linked.
> >>
> >> Also, the README may become simpler if we can link to some of the
> information and not have so much detail in the README text itself.  It
> might even be useful to have an .html README for that matter.  But that
> is all extra.  Right now I think we want to get into the testing and see
> how to smooth what we have.
> >>
> >> PS: A friend of mine is looking into the MacOSX situation.  He points
> out that one can use the Finder to do the job without users having to
> use Terminal sessions.  I don't have further information at this time.
> >>
> >> PPS: The inclusion of scripts that do the job is also worthy of
> consideration, perhaps making it unnecessary to build executables.  I
> will be looking at finding a .bat file that works safely for the Windows
> case.  That can make the instructions much shorter :).
> >>
> >>>
> >>> To cut a long story short:
> >>> I would say yes for a ZIP file for every platform.
> >> [ ... ]
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message