incubator-ooo-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 119217] New: AOO 3.4 r1309668 Windows Readme inaccurate/inconsistent
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:15:44 GMT

             Bug #: 119217
        Issue Type: DEFECT
           Summary: AOO 3.4 r1309668 Windows Readme
    Classification: Application
           Product: Installation
           Version: OOo 3.4 Beta
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows, all
            Status: CONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: ui

In the install location of r1309668 on Windows, there are two README files,
readme.txt and readme.html.  (This is in C:\Program files(x86)\Open
3\ for 64-bit en_US Windows 7 and Windows 8 Consumer Preview.

Except where otherwise noted, this comment applies to both files:

 0. The title at the top of the page is " 3.4 ReadMe" instead of
"Apache 3.4 (incubating) ReadMe"?  There are mentions of throughout the document.  It looks like some modifications are
necessary for most of those occurrences.

 1. The first statement refers the reader to
<> for the latest updates to this
file.  The page at that location only talks about Linux installation.

 2. The third paragraph refers new users to
<>.  This page serves up
and then, after flashing into view, goes to the home page of

 3. The last sentence under "Why s free for any user?" there is
a link to <> which, in context looks like it
would be a way to make donations.  Some rewording would help.  Also, at the
linked web page, the top banner does not appear to have been updated with the
new site logo.  Alsok, the addrss bar shows that the URL readches
<> and not the site.

 4. Under "Notes on Installation" the statement that there be a recent version
of JAVA [but not too recent?] is apparently not true.  This needs a restatement
that is consistent with the actual situation.  In my installation on the
Windows 8 Consumer Preview, I have no Java installed and there is no hitch in
the installation and operation.  I think this statement should be removed or
restated to reflect the actual consideration applicable to Java.

 5. Under the System Requirements, Microsoft Windows 2000 (Service Pack 4 or
higher) is still mentioned.

 6. Under "Extension Databaes Incompatibility" there is a reference to a data
directory in Unix/Linux terms.  This isen't even close for a Windows
configuration.  The description should also be in terms of what matters to
users and not so much "why."  It is no help to know that it has something to do
with the Berkeley database engine.

 7. Under "Important Accessibility Notes" the reader is referred to
<>.  This page serves up and eventually
redirects to <>.  I
did not check the further links on that page.  However, not everone is going to
know what "AT" means in this context.  It should be spelled out.  (My guess is
"Assistive Technology" but I have no idea how close to accurate that is.)

 8. Under User Support the reader is referred to "the archives of the
'' mailing list at".  The page that is now at that
location is confusing and not very good for finding User Support and of course
there are no such archives available there.

 9. Under User Support, the defunct "" e-mail address is
offered as a support alternative.

 10. Under User Support, users are referred to
That page is all about mailing lists that no longer exist.

 11. Under User Support, for a FAQ, users are also referred to
<>.  That page also
mentions the users mailinst list and the nonexistent archive location.

 12. Under Reporting Bugs & Issues, IssueZilla is mentioned.  There is no link
to any location for filing bugs.

 13. Under Getting Involved, the first paragraph has a direct link to
<>.  Is there not a
preferred URL?

 14. Under How to Start, there is a link to
<>.  This is an page
that presents the developer lists and resources of the old project.  

 15. Under Subscribe, the link to
<> should have a
better URL.  In the bulleted lists, I suggest that the (heavy traffic) and
(moderate/heavy) for ooo-users and ooo-dev should be reversed.  I'd say the
marking traffice is light/moderate too.

 16. Under Joinging the Project there is another
URL.  The link seems all right, though I did
not review the content for broken links or obsolete material.

 17. Under Used / Modified Source Code, there is reference to a NOTICE file
"which is part of the installation."  I don't see one.  The title here is a bit

 18. In the folder where these two readme files are found, there is also a
subfolder named readmes.  It only has the two files readme_en-US.html and
readme_en-US.txt.  They are the same as the readme.txt and readme.html that
this report is about.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

View raw message