Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 kay.schenk@gmail.com does not designate 216.39.63.6 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s2048; d=yahoo.com;
	b=lgrJ5RDjjawXLjuX3YCU9K8X2ivP3khoX3/TphfBiZMqE2YwtiUpq5PquficxXrjnjLPVEN/LMv/yMOnIRkqS4E406y8k/uSNizpkuGHlUQ6GsK45ggk7b8VfQbseC6y8/vSFQafNvaL5uDcTAdR+NbObWqm8Tv0FnWjTM5YPef8sTEUJyTbKX7Y6LXuwlZab/nvhBZJ9Gnw3kbFreiqAMQGA0F3twvW0CjrpEbPfb5QVLQc3urT2/RJRzdlmUHHhy384VLMQSVairnzQB/HcjPYYDMhGxLS8QaH2rLZq6gjVRcZ6r8FLPr6oZnF8H15JwhImnzaJVptGubF9U3JRA==;
Message-ID: <53EA8A3A.9000305@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:42:18 -0700
From: Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE]: propose RC2 on revision 1616946
References: <53E8847C.7060406@gmail.com>	<53EA6EE0.6050909@gmail.com>
 <20140812222058.5318ced1abcf63df1870b3c3@iol.ie>
In-Reply-To: <20140812222058.5318ced1abcf63df1870b3c3@iol.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 08/12/2014 02:20 PM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:45:36 -0700
> Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 08/11/2014 01:53 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose RC2 based on revision 1616946 from the AOO410
>>> branch. The build is ongoing and I expect to have the builds available
>>> tomorrow or on Wednesday.
>>>
>>> Further details later ...
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>
>> My current RC1 build has this information --
>> AOO411m4(Build:9774)  -  Rev. 1614049
>> 2014-07-28 17:54 - Linux i686
>>
>> Proposed RC2 has build number of 9757 so it will not update RC1.
>>
>> Is the build number for RC2 correct?
>>
> 
> On linux 64bit (deb) the 9757 build installed without problems and overwrote RC1 with no complaints on my PC.
> 

I'm using rpm. Typically I try to do an update rather than force what
rpm thinks is an older version over a newer one -- in this case, 9757
over 9774. Maybe this was just a digit transposition case.

All was fine with previous milestones until today. It would be nice for
rpm users if this could be fixed.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing."
                                   -- Simon Wiesenthal

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org