Hi All,
Red Hat already made the decision to slip the releases somewhat to include Gnome 2.4. Is the possible inclusion of the new OpenOffice.org 1.1 also being discussed?
OpenOffice.org is currently at the final release candidate (1.1rc3 - released today) and afaik this is the last Release Candidate before 1.1 is released. Given release 1.1's improvements compared to 1.0.2 and the aim for Wold & Desktop Domination, I would applaud the decision to include OOo 1.1 in Severn. What do you think?
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/1.1rc3/features.html
Regards, Patrick
Frankly, this is something I would LOVE to see myself. The differences between OOo 1.0.2 and 1.1 are significant, particularly if you have to deal with Office XP users. Heck, I have to deal with Office 11 beta users and it helps. I would be more than willing to accept a slip in the schedule for it.
Cheers,
Chris
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 05:25, Patrick wrote:
Hi All,
Red Hat already made the decision to slip the releases somewhat to include Gnome 2.4. Is the possible inclusion of the new OpenOffice.org 1.1 also being discussed?
OpenOffice.org is currently at the final release candidate (1.1rc3 - released today) and afaik this is the last Release Candidate before 1.1 is released. Given release 1.1's improvements compared to 1.0.2 and the aim for Wold & Desktop Domination, I would applaud the decision to include OOo 1.1 in Severn. What do you think?
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/1.1rc3/features.html
Regards, Patrick
-- Rhl-beta-list mailing list Rhl-beta-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-beta-list
-- ==================================== "If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' someone else's dog around." --Cowboy Wisdom
Patrick said:
Hi All,
Red Hat already made the decision to slip the releases somewhat to include Gnome 2.4. Is the possible inclusion of the new OpenOffice.org 1.1 also being discussed?
It sounds like it would be very time consuming. http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-beta-list/2003-August/msg00346.html
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:25:20PM +0200, Patrick wrote:
Red Hat already made the decision to slip the releases somewhat to include Gnome 2.4. Is the possible inclusion of the new OpenOffice.org 1.1 also being discussed?
I am going to try to make it build. Making OO compile and work is shall we say nontrivial, however, so I may not succeed in time.
Havoc
On Friday 15 August 2003 10:17, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:25:20PM +0200, Patrick wrote:
Red Hat already made the decision to slip the releases somewhat to include Gnome 2.4. Is the possible inclusion of the new OpenOffice.org 1.1 also being discussed?
I am going to try to make it build. Making OO compile and work is shall we say nontrivial, however, so I may not succeed in time.
Havoc
You're not busy because of this, are you? http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=... Tell us it's not so.
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 16:17, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:25:20PM +0200, Patrick wrote:
Red Hat already made the decision to slip the releases somewhat to include Gnome 2.4. Is the possible inclusion of the new OpenOffice.org 1.1 also being discussed?
I am going to try to make it build. Making OO compile and work is shall we say nontrivial, however, so I may not succeed in time.
Havoc
Hi Havoc,
Excellent news. I truly hope you succeed as it would be a considerable step forward. I don't mind if the final release needs to be postponed for a week or so if that means I'll be able to roll out desktops that include OOo 1.1 :)
Regards, Patrick
Le ven 15/08/2003 à 18:19, HoytDuff a écrit :
You're not busy because of this, are you? http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=... Tell us it's not so.
Yet another mosfet story... I found "2001: A Space Odyssey" better.
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 11:50, Patrick wrote:
Excellent news. I truly hope you succeed as it would be a considerable step forward. I don't mind if the final release needs to be postponed for a week or so if that means I'll be able to roll out desktops that include OOo 1.1 :)
Indeed. Before the tentative decision to include Gnome 2.4 I was wondering what real reasons there would be to upgrade my clients running RH9 desktops to RH10. There really didn't seem to be any. The inclusion of Gnome 2.4 would make RH10 more attractive, but the inclusion of both OOo 1.1 and Gnome 2.4 would really make it worth the upgrade.
I certainly wouldn't mind waiting. After all, traditionally, RedHat has released as late as November in the past. And one of the stated goals of the RHLP is to accommodate exactly this sort of late addition.
I've been meaning to look in the SRPM and maybe this is obvious, but is there some reason that these patches don't get folded back into vanilla OO? i.e. Bluecurve stuff, etc?
-Steve Bergman
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 19:27, HoytDuff wrote:
On Friday 15 August 2003 12:57, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Tell us it's not so.
Yet another mosfet story... I found "2001: A Space Odyssey" better.''
Making personal attacks doesn't provide an answer to the question and reflects poorly on you, Féliciano.
And question or remarks that are totally not related to the initial topic do not belong in this threat. Please take your discussion to a separate threat. This threat is about OOo 1.1 in the next RH release. Something that is important to many. Cluttering it with theories from this Mosfet person adds nothing.
Patrick
Le ven 15/08/2003 à 19:27, HoytDuff a écrit :
On Friday 15 August 2003 12:57, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Tell us it's not so.
Yet another mosfet story... I found "2001: A Space Odyssey" better.''
Making personal attacks doesn't provide an answer to the question and reflects poorly on you, Féliciano.
You are right. But the FUD (or not if you want) about GNOME/KDE/RedHat/Mosfet is now tiring. As an example, many people in France believe in this other "story" (call it facts if you want) : http://mosfet.arklinux.org/noredhat.html
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/phoebe-list/2003-February/msg01497.html
On Friday 15 August 2003 13:56, Féliciano Matias wrote:
But the FUD (or not if you want) about GNOME/KDE/RedHat/Mosfet is now tiring.
And an easy way to squelch speculation (and discredit the source) is to get a simple yes or no answer. Ad hominem attacks against this mosfet guy (or me, Patrick) don't resolve anything, generate unnecessary noise, and obfuscate the issue. If the comments are untrue (I suspect they are, given the history there), Havoc can say so and then it's settled.
All I did was ask a question. I'm not debating the merits when I direct a simple question to one of the parties of the topic. The allegation is public and it's either true or false. It's an issue that, if true, might impact Red Hat development. Isn't it a good thing to find out the truth?
Check further on down the thread. The rumor was not true. Crisis averted and all that.
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=...
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:19:05PM -0400, HoytDuff wrote:
You're not busy because of this, are you? http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=... Tell us it's not so.
I posted a reply to https://listman.redhat.com/archives/xdg-list/2003-August/msg00056.html
Mosfet's older anti-Red Hat claims are nicely answered by: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/mikem/redhat8kde.html
No, this is not sucking a significant percentage of my time. ;-)
My current problem is that OO.org 1.0.2 won't rebuild in the RHEL beta, but only in the build system, it builds successfully on my workstation... grumble.
Maybe I'll spend some time on 1.1 in Cambridge just so I can utterly fail to compile OO.org in new and different ways.
Havoc
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 03:24:10PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Maybe I'll spend some time on 1.1 in Cambridge just so I can utterly fail to compile OO.org in new and different ways.
If you would happen to succeed, and make those packages available, that'd be Super Cool.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:27:12 -0400, HoytDuff wrote:
On Friday 15 August 2003 12:57, Féliciano Matias wrote:
Tell us it's not so.
Yet another mosfet story... I found "2001: A Space Odyssey" better.''
Making personal attacks doesn't provide an answer to the question and reflects poorly on you, Féliciano.
The answer to the question is below the posting linked by you and also on Mosfet's home page.
- --
seth vidal (skvidal@phy.duke.edu) said:
Maybe I'll spend some time on 1.1 in Cambridge just so I can utterly fail to compile OO.org in new and different ways.
I've heard red hat has immediate access to goats for ritual sacrifice. You might find that effective.
Alas, our sacrificial goats have been repurposed for the kudzu study.
Bill
Does Donnie Barnes still have a farm in the area. I will buy a goat from him for OO.
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 14:38, Bill Nottingham wrote:
seth vidal (skvidal@phy.duke.edu) said:
Maybe I'll spend some time on 1.1 in Cambridge just so I can utterly fail to compile OO.org in new and different ways.
I've heard red hat has immediate access to goats for ritual sacrifice. You might find that effective.
Alas, our sacrificial goats have been repurposed for the kudzu study.
Bill
-- Rhl-beta-list mailing list Rhl-beta-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-beta-list
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 15:16, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Does Donnie Barnes still have a farm in the area. I will buy a goat from him for OO.
I was gonna say, maybe we need some sort of "goat-o-meter" so we know how many goats to donate... I doubt something like getting OOo 1.1 recompiled would get done with just one goat. Maybe two or three? Eight? Ten?
Actually, I was just wondering... What parts of Red Hat Linux require the most work to get ready for a new version? Is there anything mere mortals like myself can do to help out the situation, with a little effort, in our spare time?
Just thinking out loud...
Jared
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 05:25, Patrick wrote:
OpenOffice.org is currently at the final release candidate (1.1rc3 - released today) and afaik this is the last Release Candidate before 1.1 is released. Given release 1.1's improvements compared to 1.0.2 and the aim for Wold & Desktop Domination, I would applaud the decision to include OOo 1.1 in Severn. What do you think?
Yes.
I concur. Please get OO v1.1 in RHEL beta and Cambridge.
Take an extra week if you need to. This is *highly* important software.
Dax Kelson Guru Labs
On Friday 15 August 2003 15:24, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Tell us it's not so.
I posted a reply to https://listman.redhat.com/archives/xdg-list/2003-August/msg00056.html
Mosfet's older anti-Red Hat claims are nicely answered by: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/mikem/redhat8kde.html
No, this is not sucking a significant percentage of my time. ;-)
Thanks for the reply, Havoc. Politics -- blecch.
I suppose this is going off in the direction of being a development-related discussion, so rhl-devel-list is probably the best place to discuss it.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 03:27:57PM -0600, Jared Smith wrote:
Actually, I was just wondering... What parts of Red Hat Linux require the most work to get ready for a new version? Is there anything mere mortals like myself can do to help out the situation, with a little effort, in our spare time?
Hmm. One of the things that fits the "spare time" model better than trying to contribute to packaging is probably bugzilla triage. In particular, looking for dups, bugs filed against the wrong component, and bugs that need more info would be quite helpful.
When you have a set of duplicate bugs, the first thing to do is to find not the earliest report of the bug, but the clearest one with the most information. This is often not the earliest report; if it were, chances are better it would have been resolved already. Then mark the other bugs as duplicates of the best report, with like "this bug might be a duplicate of bug #nnnnn". If you use that exact form, "bug #" followed by the bug number, bugzilla will helpfully convert the text into a hyperlink. :-)
When you are looking for bugs filed against the wrong component, there are two possibilities: bugs that filed against 4suite (the first component in the list) and bugs that are more subtly wrong. Common "subtle wrongness" includes bugs filed against mount, pppd, acpid, etc. that are really kernel bugs (and vice versa), and bugs filed against applications that are really in libraries used by the applications.
Bugs that need more info are often "foo breaks" without much more information. If you see a vague bug report that you know how to get more information on, you can chime in and politely suggest some ways to get more information. If you can actually reproduce the bug, providing more information, especially on how to reproduce it, is wonderful.
If you are a developer, you can even write candidate patches. When you have one, please feel free to bring it to rhl-devel-list for discussion if the bug owner doesn't respond within a few business days.
The GNOME triage guidelines are at http://developer.gnome.org/projects/bugsquad/triage/ and aren't bad reading, though our process is a bit different. We should probably write up our own triage guidelines; I guess this email (and perhaps a thread it might spawn) could be the start of that.
Thanks!
michaelkjohnson
"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book." Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/