[ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag created (3.5.0-beta1)

Hi,

there have been created the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag for 3.5.0-beta1 release.
The corresponding official builds will be available within 4 days or so.

It was delayed by few days because there were several build problems
caused by the hectic atmosphere around the feature freeze. Also we
did some pretesting to make sure that it would be usable for QA.

Thank you all who helped solving all troubles, did testing,
and provided feedback.


Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use
(3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for
beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates.

The list of changes against 3.4 is missing. It is not easy to generate
it correctly after the git repository merge. Please, stay tuned.


See also the schedule at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#3.5_release
and release criteria at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria


Now, if you want to switch your clone to the tag, please do:

./g fetch --tags
./g checkout -b tag-libreoffice-3.4.99.1 libreoffice-3.4.99.1


Thanks again everyone who helped to make this happen.

Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

At 12:34pm -0500 Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use
> (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for
> beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates.

> ./g fetch --tags
> ./g checkout -b tag-libreoffice-3.4.99.1 libreoffice-3.4.99.1

I hope this isn't a silly question: if I'm trying to stay at the
"bleeding edge" of the 3.5 branch, should I switch from libreoffice-3-5
to this new branch?

With a git pull from an hour ago, this is the branch that I'm currently
building:

$ git branch
* libreoffice-3-5
   master

Thanks,

Kevin
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Kevin Hunter píše v Po 12. 12. 2011 v 12:52 -0500:
No, in this case, just ignore the tag. The tag is not a real branch. It
is a static mark. It describes a status of the libreoffice-3-5 branch
where we do the beta1 build. All additional fixes will go to the
libreoffice-3-5 branch.

> With a git pull from an hour ago, this is the branch that I'm currently
> building:
>
> $ git branch
> * libreoffice-3-5
>    master

Looks good. Please, also make sure that the other repositories are on
this branch. I do the following

   ./g branch | grep \*


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

At 1:24pm -0500 Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Looks good. Please, also make sure that the other repositories are
> on this branch. I do the following
>
>     ./g branch | grep \*

:-)  They are; no worries/  But good eye for git vs ./g!

Kevin
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Petr Mladek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there have been created the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag for 3.5.0-beta1 release.
> The corresponding official builds will be available within 4 days or so.
>

Mac OSX x86 build uploading now at
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/mac/x86/
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

I'm running into this new build issue:

[ build ALL ] top level modules: bootstrap src.downloaded ooo
[ build ALL ] loaded modules: ooo

LibreOffice build successfully finished.

To install, issue: make install
Developers might prefer this way: make dev-install -o build
To run smoketest, issue: make check
For crosscompiles, please consult README.cross how to install it.

make[1]: Entering directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1'
echo "Installing in /usr/lib/libreoffice..." && \
ooinstall "/usr/lib/libreoffice" && \
echo "" && \
echo "Installation finished, you can now execute:" && \
echo "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice"
Installing in /usr/lib/libreoffice...
Running LibreOffice installer
Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43
... checking environment variables ...
rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice//logging/': Directory not empty

***********************************************************
Successful packaging process!
***********************************************************
Running SDK installer
Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43
... checking environment variables ...
rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice_SDK//logging/': Directory not empty
Can't copy file: /tmp/ooopackaging/i_58951323727025/unxlngx6.pro/LibreOffice_SDK//zip/en-US/00/odkcommon_zip/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl -> /build/src/fakeinstall/usr/lib/libreoffice/sdk/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl No such file or directory at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/worker.pm line 711.
Failed to install:  at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/ooinstall line 129.
make[1]: *** [install] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1'
make: *** [source-env-and-recurse] Error 2
ESC[1mESC[31m==> ERROR:ESC[mESC[1m A failure occurred in build().ESC[m
ESC[1m    Aborting...ESC[m

Any idea?

-Andy
ArchLinux
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Petr Mladek píše v Po 12. 12. 2011 v 18:34 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> there have been created the libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag for 3.5.0-beta1 release.
> The corresponding official builds will be available within 4 days or so.

I am sorry. I created the source tarballs from a wrong directory (beta0
was made from master), so they were wrong. Note that the beta1 tag was
correct in git. Just the source tarballs were wrong.

I have updated them at
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ 3 hours ago.

If you want to be sure that you have the right version. Please compare
it with the attached .asc files. For example you could do:

for file in *.asc ; do echo $file ; gpg2 --verify $file ; done 2>&1 |
less



Also I have uploaded alternative tarballs compressed by xz!

The LZMA compression safes 65GB of 355GB (18%) in compare with bz2.
I think that we could provide both bzip2 and xz tarballs for some time.
I guess that everyone will want only .xz tarballs in the long term.


Thanks a lot Tomas (scarabeus) for finding the problem with wrong
tarballs. Also thank him for the idea of LZMA compression.

Big apologies if you used wrong tarballs. I have updated my release
notes, so it should not happen again.


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 05:14 +0100:
> I'm running into this new build issue:

Sigh, I have created the source tarballs from master instead of the
libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag.

Could you please dowload the updated tarballs from
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ and try the build
once again?

I am really sorry for the inconvenience. It happened because beta0 was
made from master and I forgot to update my release step notes for the
libreoffice-3-5 branch and ran the command in master git clone.


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Am Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:30:01 +0100
schrieb Petr Mladek <[hidden email]>:

> Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 05:14 +0100:
> > I'm running into this new build issue:
>
> Sigh, I have created the source tarballs from master instead of the
> libreoffice-3.4.99.1 tag.
>
> Could you please dowload the updated tarballs from
> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ and try the build
> once again?

Are you sure the new tarballs are fixed? I've tried the new .xz ones and
I'm still getting the same error.

Any idea?


Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43
... checking environment variables ...
rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice//logging/': Directory not empty

***********************************************************
Successful packaging process!
***********************************************************
Running SDK installer
Subroutine installer::epmfile::getcwd redefined at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm line 43
... checking environment variables ...
rmdir: failed to remove `/tmp/LibreOffice_SDK//logging/': Directory not empty
Can't copy file: /tmp/ooopackaging/i_243901323795664/unxlngx6.pro/LibreOffice_SDK//zip/en-US/00/odkcommon_zip/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl -> /build/src/fakeinstall/usr/lib/libreoffice/sdk/idl/com/sun/star/io/TextInputStream.idl No such file or directory at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/modules/installer/worker.pm line 737.
Failed to install:  at /build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1/solenv/bin/ooinstall line 129.
make[1]: *** [install] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/src/libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1'
make: *** [source-env-and-recurse] Error 2



-Andy
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:12:33PM +0100, Andreas Radke <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are you sure the new tarballs are fixed? I've tried the new .xz ones and
> I'm still getting the same error.

I tried to build these:

$ sha1sum *.bz2
b116c7dade3d0fb9bf73362e728dbb1b04068acb  libreoffice-binfilter-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2
6534c81c0fd86813735896cd92b738a60d27323f  libreoffice-core-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2
b5efc018319d630b776be8427b601473d15c7559  libreoffice-help-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2
e38d3d47f0a33b540f1b962ce8f1dc9ec8d84f14  libreoffice-translations-3.4.99.1.tar.bz2

It succeeded without any problems.

Build script at
http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/people/vmiklos/lotesting/source/xapps/libreoffice/FrugalBuild,
in case that would help you.

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Andreas Radke píše v Út 13. 12. 2011 v 18:12 +0100:
They should be fine.

Well, Rene pointed out that there is outdated configure stuff. It seems
that the script "lo-pack-lources" did not run "autoreconf". You might
try to run it to refresh the files.

Tomas saw something similar on Gentoo as well. It might be a dependency
problem. Does it help you to run the installation without any
parallelism?

Also I would try to remove /tmp/ooopackaging and /tmp/LibreOffice_SDK
and similar directories to make sure that there is not mess from the
past.

Just to be sure. Do you have enough free space in /tmp?

Otherwise, I havn't seen it, so it is had for me to debug it :-(


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Am Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:59:57 +0100
schrieb Petr Mladek <[hidden email]>:

> Well, Rene pointed out that there is outdated configure stuff. It
> seems that the script "lo-pack-lources" did not run "autoreconf". You
> might try to run it to refresh the files.

> Tomas saw something similar on Gentoo as well. It might be a
> dependency problem. Does it help you to run the installation without
> any parallelism?

no luck.

>
> Also I would try to remove /tmp/ooopackaging and /tmp/LibreOffice_SDK
> and similar directories to make sure that there is not mess from the
> past.

build is done in a clean chroot each time. shouldn't be a problem. the
beta0 built fine here.
>
> Just to be sure. Do you have enough free space in /tmp?

sure. just rechecked it.

> Otherwise, I havn't seen it, so it is had for me to debug it :-(
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr

any suggestions welcome.

the only difference to beta0 is the changed internal libvisio src bump.
tried autoconf/autoreconf and make -j1 install without luck :(

-Andy
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

2011/12/14 Andreas Radke <[hidden email]>:
>
> any suggestions welcome.
>
> the only difference to beta0 is the changed internal libvisio src bump.
> tried autoconf/autoreconf and make -j1 install without luck :(
>
> -Andy

It is not failure during build, but during install, so configure and
make can have any parallelism.

Anyway gentoo bug for this issue is here [1].
The problem as I managed to hit it once is that NO subdirs are created
in sdk directory -> all copying fails because it does not have the
place where it wants to put the files.

Cheers

Tom

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394599
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Andreas Radke píše v St 14. 12. 2011 v 22:48 +0100:
> build is done in a clean chroot each time. shouldn't be a problem. the
> beta0 built fine here.

> the only difference to beta0 is the changed internal libvisio src bump.
> tried autoconf/autoreconf and make -j1 install without luck :(

It is really strange. Tomas have problems to reproduce it as well. It
happened him when he did a clean build. It did not happen when he tried
to reproduce it as root.

Could you please try to run installation twice in the chroot as a normal
user?

Could you please try to do it as root?

Also you might try to pass -log and --debug options to the
make_installer.pl call. Just edit solenv/bin/ooinstall in the ODK/SDK
part. It will produce many logs in instsetoo_native/unxlng??.pro. You
might try to search them for anything interesting.

Best Regards,
Petr


_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Petr Mladek píše v Čt 15. 12. 2011 v 11:09 +0100:
I have finally got time to look at it. There were two problems:

1. core/bin/distro-install-sdk move many files to /usr/share to make it
LSB-compliant. It creates compat symlinks in /usr/lib; The symlinks are
absolute and invalid if you use $DESTDIR.

2. As Tomas found, "make distro-pack-install" did the installation twice
from some reasons. The second installation failed because it tried to
access files via the invalid symlinks.


I am not able to find why the installation is called twice. The gbuild
stuff is still a bit cryptic to me :-)

Though, I have updated ooinstall to cleanup $DESTDIR before installation
starts. It works fine now. I am not 100% sure that we want this
solutions. Well, it makes some sense even after we fix the installation
dependencies.

Unfortunately, it was too late to get this into beta2. You might find
the change at
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-3-5&id=1048d8fa4abd3e55a45dfb6884db808da1d72c9e


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Thank you. The installation now finished well.

-Andy
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 08:11:36PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I am not able to find why the installation is called twice. The gbuild
> stuff is still a bit cryptic to me :-)

This is fixed on master, the relevant fixes are

 a298986d627b944eb94fdd8b0c30a9298f14ab65
 9c197011a564c185db425d38425f3a89c1700c9d
 fe6499cee5e84183844df41380519ed7eeb0c4dc
 d8729cfc6413c15af7c9e9eaecbffcc23d37ab7b

all touching just post_AuxTargets.mk and nothing else. Since this has been on
master for a few days, this could be cherry-picked to -3-5 (maybe sqashed into
a single commit).

Best,

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Bjoern Michaelsen píše v St 21. 12. 2011 v 11:19 +0100:
Perfect. I have cherry-picked it to the libreoffice-3-5 branch.

Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use
> (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for
> beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates.

Can we tag the beta0 as 3.4.99.0 in addition to 3.5.0.0 for now? That shouldnt
hurt.

As we wont have a 3.5.0 rc0 we could silently leave the 3.5.0.0 tag where it
is, but would never need to tell anyone about it anymore.

Having:
 3.5.0beta0 => 3.4.99.0
 3.5.0beta1 => 3.4.99.1
 3.5.0rc0 => nonexistant, published rcs start at 1
 3.5.0rc1 => 3.5.0.1

If someone asks about the 3.5.0.0 tag, we could tell them to just ignore it
without lengthy discussions.

Well, people could still ask why our rcs start at 1, while our minors and
majors start at 0 and we _could_ answer that with "tradition" as OOo did so
too. That would not be the whole story as 3.X.X_m0 was the branchoff point at
OOo (quite a sensible convention), in which case our 3.5.0.0 is slightly of the
mark.

Anyway: Could we at least please double-tag 3.5.0.0 as 3.4.99.0?

Best,

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Bjoern Michaelsen píše v St 21. 12. 2011 v 21:31 +0100:
IMHO, the right explanation is that .0.1 is the first release candidate
for the the initial release and .1.1 is the first release candidate for
the first bug fix release.

> Anyway: Could we at least please double-tag 3.5.0.0 as 3.4.99.0?

done

I am sorry for the troubles.


Best Regards.
Petr

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice