openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
Date Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:29:33 GMT
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier <> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still
>>>>>> pointing at
for Mac
>>>>>> Builds?
>>>>>> Minimally this then points to
>>>>>> this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
>>>>>> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be
>>>>>> clear what is current.
>>>>>> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed
>>>>>> and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>>>>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions
>>>>> the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>>>>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show
>>>>> on the Wiki based on
>>>>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>>>> That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
>>>> policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
>>>> being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
>>>> IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
>>>> talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
>>>> In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
>>>> sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
>>>> on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
>>>> have a different opinion.
>>>> -Rob
>>> Rob,
>>> Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc
>>> and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing "released' binaries. IMHO, he will
>>> need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ...
>> Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise.   ASF practice,
>> both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC
>> wishes to do so.  The general discussion has gone far beyond whether
>> or not we release binaries or whether they are official.  We're now
>> discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed.
>> Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open
>> source.  But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user
>> application, something no other Apache project has previously
>> attempted.  So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to
>> long-held practices and habits for some Apache members.  But this is
>> fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the
>> public good.  I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries
>> can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be.  If
>> this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page:
>> So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since
>> they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority
>> than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European
>> Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use
>> Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that
>> "Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries)".  This is
>> absolutely false.
> Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users.

The phrase "convenience binary" does not exist anywhere on the IPMC website.

What is said is "Many would argue that for open source projects, the
source package is the release: binaries are just for convenience."

But "Many would say" does not a policy make.  The same page also says
of binaries, "For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does

> At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We are stating
that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that it is in Policy. This
is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is not a vote that says that the code
even works properly it confirms that it is valid Apache Release.

The IPMC will be voting for the the release of source and binaries.
This includes verifying that the LICENSE and NOTICE in the binaries
are correct.  If you recall we had a delay in our first release due to
errors in these files in the binaries.  If we were not voting for
them, and if they were not official, then we would not have needed to
fix and rebuild before voting.  I've seen the same occur in other
projects, where the binaries where JAR's..  So even from the IPMC
perspective there are properties of the binaries that require
verification and which have policy implication.

> We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are of high quality and that they
work, but we are relying on others in the project to come up with that in aggregate - none
of us have every environment - none of us understand every language. This is a different standard.
We are certifying that the source release when built produces these artifacts and that they
are useful to users.

In the end a vote means what it says.  If the vote says we are voting
to release binaries as well as source then we are voting to release
both.  if anyone feels the wording of the vote violates IPMC or ASF
policy then they should object.

> We can consider how to treat the word "Official" or "Certified" around platform builds
that may be called "Apache OpenOffice" as opposed to "Powered by Apache OpenOffice". This
certainly gets into the area of digital signatures which is fast becoming a topic for multiple
projects at The ASF. And yes the quality is about the control of the build.

The only uses of  "official" and "unofficial" in the IPMC's release
documentation supports the view that our binaries are part of the
official release.

IPMC and Branding policy does back up the view that downstream builds,
not built by or voted on by the PMC, and not distributed by Apache,
are "unofficial".  But that is not what we're dealing with here.

> Does that help?

I think I understand what you believe, but I don't think what you say
is an accurate reflection of current IPMC or ASF policy.  It appears
to me that you are inventing a new category of "unofficial release"
that has no basis in current documentation.  I'd recommend just
dropping that term, or working with the IPMC to get consensus on what
that means and what ramifications that has in terms of policy.  But as
far as I can see the binaries require the same review, the same vote
and the same distribution and signing requirements as the source.  So
inventing artificial categories, unsubstantiated by policy, will only
further alienate a community that is quite proud of the public good
brought by the binaries we have released for over 10 years prior to
Apache and which we have continued to do this this date, and be used
as FUD by those outside of the project.  I assume that is not your
intent, so best to just drop this.


> Regards,
> Dave
>> -Rob
>>> (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) )
>>> /tj/
>>>>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <>
>>>>>>> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
>>>>>>> To: "" <>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating),
>>>>>>> Reply-To:
>>>>>>> delivered-to: mailing list
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>>>>>>> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate
as Apache
>>>>>>>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug
fix release
>>>>>>>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show
that we
>>>>>>>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It
will again
>>>>>>>> help to continue the success of and will gain
>>>>>>>> confidence
>>>>>>>> in OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks
and the
>>>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released
if the
>>>>>>>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote
here on the
>>>>>>>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>>>>>>>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce
>>>>>>>> further languages:
>>>>>>>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched
>>>>>>>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British
>>>>>>>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
>>>>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes
>>>>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well
as binary
>>>>>>>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to
verify and
>>>>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found
on the
>>>>>>>> following wiki page:
>>>>>>>> h
>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice
>>>>>>>> (incubating).
>>>>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>>>>  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
>>>>>>>> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
>>>>>>>> mailing and will be open for
further 72
>>>>>>>> hours.
>>>>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC.
We would
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of
our project
>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>>>>>>>>  [ ]  0 Don't care
>>>>>>>>  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

View raw message