Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4FA797CE.8000206@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 11:37:18 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Schmidt?= <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
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>
 <4FA66118.2000208@googlemail.com> <4FA673E1.4080004@wtnet.de>
In-Reply-To: <4FA673E1.4080004@wtnet.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 5/6/12 2:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 05/06/2012 01:31 PM, schrieb J�rgen Schmidt:
>> On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>> The checksums file is ready:
>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html
>>>
>>> It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
>>> mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
>>> builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
>>> and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
>>> that page and you will see plenty of broken links.
>>
>> we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)
>
> Yes, for sure.
>
>> I have drafted the download page on the project page.
>
> That's good.
>
> An additional link to the (upcoming) official announcement (mail
> archive, blog post, etc.) would be good.
>
>> http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html
>>
>> Review is appreciated.
>>
>> - downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
>> - SDK as well
>> - checksum files directly from dist
>
> Do you have any special reason to show download links also here? All is
> (will be) available in the download area (currently here:
> "http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html" and
> "http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html").
>
> Otherwise I would suggest that the webpage points only to the already
> existing download webpages. Then we will have less work when updating
> downloads.
>
> Source --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
> SDK --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk
> Binaries --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html
> Checksums --> http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html

by the way why do you have created a new checksums file and not extended 
the other.html. I think there is enough place and the context is much 
clearer as on a further page.

Juergen

>
> If you want to mention the legacy builds it would be great to point also
> here to the respective webpage:
> "http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/index.html".
>
> If you want to mention the archive in general (prior OOo 3.3.0) this
> link is helping: "http://www.openoffice.org/download/archive.html".
>
> Marcus