Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de
 designates 213.209.103.7 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4FA6B4D2.3020102@wtnet.de>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 19:28:50 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably
 correction
References: <4F99DCEA.80608@gmail.com> <4F9B0213.5020304@apache.org>
 <CAP-ksojowyDeo4KnHW4m+-4=7q+kPYwkCgCw3F2psYd2e8f6UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F9B1C21.60701@gmail.com>
 <CAGj3217reOttzkDiP9fbs17J3qDMu+Pe3XP_ZMy2MEF4qZAL5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F9EDBCC.4060306@wtnet.de> <4F9F0250.2040106@gmail.com>
 <4F9F11D4.6080705@wtnet.de> <4F9F1CA8.1080302@t-online.de>
 <CAGj3214ncABOt6B8hQC4BWvX-dhBuk3nZrXFaNJXbEd+0_SGmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F9FBEF1.70403@t-online.de>
 <CAGj32152RxEVeoRx+QrPHyYYVDLZE8-yxVvR1af=z2HDPs5Wdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FA38A2D.2020801@googlemail.com>
 <CAGj32153hO4auAY+VfFvCWez0Wt_QZgCCsLf_Jstf2-Kao9siQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FA43A74.7030105@wtnet.de>
 <2BB9F9F7-1582-48AD-93F9-102A6624FF7B@comcast.net>
 <4FA48A82.2090901@wtnet.de> <4FA65A4C.70806@apache.org>
 <4FA66C58.7030209@wtnet.de> <0669F1D681C3428DA9C5E416AD77A9FD@googlmail.com>
 <4FA69C83.4040804@wtnet.de> <4FA6A796.4040107@apache.org>
 <4FA6B01E.7050506@wtnet.de> <4FA6B166.8030506@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA6B166.8030506@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
>>>>>> Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds
>>>> @Andrea:
>>>> You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
>>>> that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
>>>> other files?
>>>
>>> I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64
>>> missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of
>>> broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it
>>> seems to match the list of missing files):
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the list. :-)
>>
>> I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
>> (the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
>> combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
>> are missing.
>
> yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
> en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.
>
> That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.

I think when en-GB gets diabled in "languages.js", then the green box 
can point to the "other.html" webpage. And on that webpage we can leave 
Mac OS and Windows as available. Or we drop it completely.

>> Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
>> string. But it has to be "3.4.0".
>
> that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.

Marcus

>> The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
>> and from the checksums webpage:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus