openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: updates.openoffice.org
Date Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:55:24 GMT
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:

> On 5 June 2013 18:37, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5 June 2013 17:43, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 5 June 2013 16:48, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, janI <jani@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > >> > On 5 June 2013 11:05, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
> > > > orwittmann@googlemail.com
> > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> sorry for top-posting, but I think it makes sense to
clean up
> > some
> > > > >> things.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Some facts and my opinions:
> > > > >> >> (1)
> > > > >> >> Fact: In communication with infra, infra had proposed
> > > > >> >> https://updates.openoffice.**org/ <
> > https://updates.openoffice.org/
> > > >
> > > > (
> > > > >> >> https://ooo-updates.**openoffice.org/<
> > > > >> https://ooo-updates.openoffice.org/>as the backup) as the
URL for
> > the
> > > > >> resources accessed by the update
> > > > >> >> functionality by AOO 4.0 and later. Nobody objects.
> > > > >> >> My opinion: I think we should go for it.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > +1, I will check dns, add whats missing, and when the cert
> arrives
> > > > update
> > > > >> > erebus-ssl (the https: proxy)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> (2)
> > > > >> >> Fact: In communication with infra, infra had proposed
> > > > >> >> ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk as the SVN location
for the
> > > > resources
> > > > >> >> needed for the update functionality by AOO 4.0 and later.
> > > > >> >> My opinion: I believe it would be good to have the update
> > resources
> > > > >> >> separated from the website resources. It would mean
to move
> > > > >> >>
> > ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/**content/projects/aoo40/check.**Update
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk/aoo40/check.Update
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > +1 No problem, I can create the path in svn and add an alias
> > (link)
> > > in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > httpd server. Btw this is easy to change later, it is a
simple
> one
> > > > line,
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > the configuration.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> (3)
> > > > >> >> My understanding: I think infra had in mind to "map"
> > > > >> >> https://updates.openoffice.org (resp. https://ooo-updates.**
> > > > >> >> openoffice.org/ <https://ooo-updates.openoffice.org/>)
to
> > > > >> >> ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk
> > > > >> >> Please correct me, if my understanding is not correct.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > it was correct, but changed to (2)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> (4)
> > > > >> >> Fact: The update resources for AOO 3.4.1, AOO 3.4, OOo
3.3, OOo
> > > 3.2.1
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> OOo 3.2 will remain at their current SVN location and
will be
> > > > accessed
> > > > >> by
> > > > >> >> the current UpdateURLs.
> > > > >> >> My opinion: Thus, I believe there will be no change
to the SVN
> > > > >> locations,
> > > > >> >> to the URLs and to the "URL mapping/forwarding" (sorry,
I do
> not
> > > know
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> correct term here) for the update resources used by
already
> > > released
> > > > >> >> versions.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > mapping is the correct term. There will be no changes apart
from
> > (1)
> > > > and
> > > > >> > (2)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> My proposal:
> > > > >> >> I propose to follow infra's proposal mentioned above
in (1) and
> > > (2).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > I have added it to infra tasks. We are currently waiting
for the
> > > cert
> > > > to
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > sent, then the first step will be to get https: working
for wiki
> > and
> > > > >> > forums, second step is updates.o.o
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Best regards, Oliver.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > thx for a very  clear mail, if nobody objects within the
next 72
> > > > hours,
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > will be implemented as you propose.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An extra step will be needed.  Presumably we want the Apache
CMS
> > > > >> enabled so it publishes files from the SVN dir to the website
dir.
> > > > >> This doesn't happen automatically.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > that is not only an extra step, that can turn out to be a bigger
> > > > challenge.
> > > > > Having CMS enabled
> > > > > is a very valid request, but then please choose a location inside
> the
> > > > > web-site where CMS is already enabled.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We already have two separate CMS publish targets from our SVN:  /site
> > > > (openoffice.apache.org) and /ooo-site (www.openoffice.org).  Having
> a
> > > > third one should not be a problem.  I'd like to avoid the complexity
> > > > that would occur if we had the same SVN dir connected to two
> different
> > > > CMS targets.
> > > >
> > >
> > > of course it can be done its software, its just more work and more
> admin
> > > afterward.
> > >
> > > You would not have one svn dir connected to two different cms targets
> if
> > > target dir is inside www.openoffice.org (which is what I suggested).
> > >
> > > updates.openoffice.org is logically just a pointer, and would normally
> > > point inside the www domain (that is the simple solution), but can
> point
> > > outside the www domain (which requires changes to httpd.conf, and an
> > extra
> > > cms setup).
> > >
> >
> > from Oliver's commmunication [1], it seems that updates.openoffice.orghas
> > been suggested to be *outside* the current web site domain, and followed
> by
> > his comments --
> >
> > "My opinion: I believe it would be good to have the update resources
> > separated from the website resources. It would mean to move
> > ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/aoo40/check.Update to
> > ^/openoffice/updates-site/trunk/aoo40/check.Update"
> >
> > I feel we should NOT point the new update to any area within the existing
> > www domain (we had some BIG problems initially trying to enable updates
> > through the web server), so a new CMS would be needed. Hopefully, this is
> > not a horrendous task.
> >
>
> Of course I will not cause big problems, but why does
>
> - ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/**
> >
> > content/projects/update/**aoo341/ used by
> > UpdateURL http://www.openoffice.org/**projects/update/aoo341/check.**
>
> work,


Well this particular one doesn't do anything--it's a placeholder dummy
routine...so it definitely wouldn't cause any problems. This was the
UpdateURL packaged with AOO34 in the versionrc file created from--

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO34/main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst?revision=1413471&view=markup

but the update service was not implemented -- say going to 3.4.1.

I have no other explanation. Apparently, we have had no "live" test
updating from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1.

Functioning feeds for previous versions are in:

http://www.openoffice.org/projects/update34
http://www.openoffice.org/projects/update35
http://www.openoffice.org/projects/update36
http://www.openoffice.org/projects/update38

So, this is the other issue. Changing placement of this URL will likely
entail rebuilding the current snapshot for 4.0 with the new URL.

I think the main concern, and the suggestion of an isolated new web area is
the amount of traffic that could get generated all at once by folks that
have auto update enabled. I think this is a very good idea.



> while a new aoo40 along the same lines cause big problems ?
>
> the URL is just an alias/mapping to the location inside the tree (or if you
> prefer a shortcut notation), it is not a special httpd or anything.
>

yes, but they can contain the actual feeds that trigger processing/updating
OpenOffice.
see, for example:


http://www.openoffice.org/projects/update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update



>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > rgds
> > > jan I.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -Rob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > rgds
> > > > > jan i.
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Rob
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > rgds
> > > > >> > jan I.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On 05.06.2013 00:22, janI wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> On 5 June 2013 00:05, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>  On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:59 PM, janI <jani@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> On 4 June 2013 22:36, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>  On 03/06/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>  I think the concern is this:
> > > > >> >>>>>>> 1) We want SSL for 4.0.http://update.openoffice.****org<
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> http://update.openoffice.org> is
not HTTPS.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> 2) The URL https://ooo-site.openoffice.****apache.org<
> > > > >> http://apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> https://ooo-site.openoffice.**apache.org<
> > > > >> https://ooo-site.openoffice.apache.org>>
> > > > >> >>>> supports SSL, but is
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> not considered "long term stable".  The
URL is an artifact
> of
> > > the
> > > > CMS
> > > > >> >>>>>>> 3) We're looking for a stable URL.
 One could be
> > > > >> >>>>>>> https://updates.openoffice.org****,
but that requires an
> > SSL
> > > > cert
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >>>>>>> *.openoffice.org.  But will that
be supported in time for
> > the
> > > > AOO
> > > > >> 4.0
> > > > >> >>>>>>> release?
> > > > >> >>>>>>> 4) Backup plan is updates.openoffice.apache.org,
which
> > could
> > > be
> > > > >> >>>>>>> supported via SSL today, using the
*.apache.org cert.  If
> > we
> > > do
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> >>>>>>> we'd want to map that to its own
CMS dir in SVN. so it can
> > be
> > > > >> updated
> > > > >> >>>>>>> and published via the CMS.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> This is mostly correct, except the fact
(in #2 and #4) that
> > the
> > > > >> current
> > > > >> >>>>>> certificates only support x.apache.org
and not
> > x.y.apache.org:
> > > > so
> > > > >> >>>>>> https://ooo-site.apache.org is what
is in the sources
> right
> > > now
> > > > >> (well,
> > > > >> >>>>>> the last time I checked) and https://openoffice-updates.
> > **a**
> > > > >> pache.org<http://apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> https://openoffice-updates.**apache.org<
> > > > >> https://openoffice-updates.apache.org>>(or
> > > > >> >>>> something like that) should be
> > > > >> >>>> used for the backup plan in #4.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Hi
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> I am confused, it seem we nearly all agree
on
> > > > >> >>>>> https://updates.openoffice.**orgbut <
> > > > >> https://updates.openoffice.orgbut>not on the directory.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> The order for the cert is being processed,
when the cert
> > arrives
> > > > it
> > > > >> >>>>> needs
> > > > >> >>>>> to be implemented on erebus-sll (our https:
proxy), and we
> > > (infra)
> > > > >> need
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> do some updates on the aoo servers.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> In order to do this work, I need:
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> 1) which url (e.g. https://updates.openoffice.org**)
> > > > >> >>>>> 2) should relate to which directory in svn.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> The last mails contains different proposal
ranging from dont
> > do
> > > it
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>> 4.0
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> to different dirs, that is something I cannot
implement.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> We can also decide to forget it for https:updates.*,
but I
> > need
> > > a
> > > > >> single
> > > > >> >>>>> decision to be able to implement it.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Is the cert already here?  Or do we have a few
weeks to
> decide?
> > > >  I'd
> > > > >> >>>> say, don't let this decision get in the way
of deploying the
> > cert
> > > > and
> > > > >> >>>> enabling it for the website, wikis, forums,
etc.   The update
> > > site
> > > > >> >>>> doesn't need to be enabled until shortly before
AOO 4.0 is
> > > > released.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>  We have been promised a free cert, I just checked
it is not
> > yet
> > > in
> > > > >> our
> > > > >> >>> hands.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Wiki and other services with login, will be changed
to https:
> to
> > > > >> adhere to
> > > > >> >>> asf/infra policy.
> > > > >> >>> This will be done on infra initative, and the actual
setup
> will
> > be
> > > > like
> > > > >> >>> other servers in asf.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> update.o.o can come later, but it will definitively
save work
> if
> > > we
> > > > do
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> >>> as one task. Of course if
> > > > >> >>> the decision is to postpone after 4.0, it will be
2 tasks.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>> And depending on when the cert arrives, we might
not use it
> at
> > > all
> > > > for
> > > > >> >>>> 4.0 updates.  If it comes too late we'll just
use an
> > apache.org
> > > > >> >>>> address.   So we're really waiting for Infra
on this, not the
> > > other
> > > > >> >>>> way around.  We need an estimate for when the
cert will be
> > > > purchased
> > > > >> >>>> so we can decide whether or not it will be used
for 4.0
> > updates.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>> As I understand it from the code, the end-user never
sees this
> > > url,
> > > > so
> > > > >> why
> > > > >> >>> not stick with apache.org ?
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> rgds
> > > > >> >>> jan I.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>> -Rob
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>  rgds
> > > > >> >>>>> jan I.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >> >>>>>>    Andrea.
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > >  ------------------------------****----------------------------**
> > > > >> >>>> --**---------
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**
> > > pache.org
> > > > <
> > > > >> http://apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> > > > >> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>> >
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > > > >> >>>> ---------
> > > > >> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**
> > apache.org<
> > > > >> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**
> apache.org<
> > > > >> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "You can't believe one thing and do another.
> >  What you believe and what you do are the same thing."
> >                              -- Leonard Peltier
> >
>



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

"You can't believe one thing and do another.
 What you believe and what you do are the same thing."
                             -- Leonard Peltier

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message