From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: Libreoffice source disappeared Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 00:13:56 -0700 Message-ID: <874lj6daa3.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87wow2eu0c.fsf@gmail.com> <20180517053113.GA20576@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36133) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJD72-00041R-A5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 03:14:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJD71-0002M4-05 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 03:14:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]:39385) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJD70-0002Lt-Pj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 03:14:06 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id a22-v6so1632805pfn.6 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 00:14:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180517053113.GA20576@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Thu, 17 May 2018 01:31:13 -0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Leo! Leo Famulari writes: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:22:27PM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote: >> The LibreOffice version scheme is described here: >>=20 >> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#Version_scheme >>=20 >> It looks like version 5.4.7.2 is supposed to be the 2nd release >> candidate of the 7th bugfix release in the 5.4 series. This appears to >> be the ChangeLog going from 5.4.7.1 to 5.4.7.2: > > Thanks for looking this up. I didn't realize 5.4.7.1 was a release > candidate. I chatted with some folks in #libreoffice on Freenode, and I learned the following facts about the LibreOffice release procedure: * They always maintains two versions simultaneously. Right now that's version 6 and version 5. * The release of 5.4.7 has not yet been announced. It looks like announcements happen here: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/ * For a given version X.Y.Z, the release cycle behaves like this: * Before the release is announced, any number of X.Y.Z.N release candidates may be published. Based on what we saw just recently, as new releases are added, the old ones will be removed from the main download location. * Once the release is announced, no further X.Y.Z.N release candidates will be published, and the last "N" is used as the X.Y.Z release. So, the reason 5.4.7.2 replaced 5.4.7.1 when it came out is because the 5.4.7 release hasn't been announced yet. Until the 5.4.7 release has been announced, we might see more release candidates (e.g., 5.4.7.3). >> Is there any reason we shouldn't just use the latest LibreOffice >> release, which appears to be 6.1.0.0? > > I did the 5.4.7.1 update instead of 6.1 because I figured it would > probably build without having to tweak the package recipe (it did) and I > was short on time. > > There's no reason to delay updating to LibreOffice 6. OK. Since LibreOffice officially supports both 5 and 6, we could also choose to offer both 5 and 6 if the maintenance burden isn't too high. I do not plan to add this myself (but I might - you never know), so anyone who is interested should feel free to try adding LibreOffice 6. >> FYI, when I asked on the LibreOffice IRC channel, they told me that old >> releases can be found here: >>=20 >> http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/5.4.7.1/sr= c/libreoffice-5.4.7.1.tar.xz >>=20 >> Maybe we should add the "old" archives (and mirrors thereof, if any >> exist) to the list of mirrors, so that when they remove a published >> release, we have a chance of automatically fetching it from the "old" >> archives. What do you think? > > Yes, we should add this alternate address. Actually, today they told me that the "old" location contains everything, even the new releases. To simplify things, perhaps we should always just use the "old" location. What do you think? =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAlr9K7QACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp0HHhAAnGdiWTNrqKEPN/3Erbwdg2xev762S2ItNDY1EdThpvSygJz8yP2crTkT ts1QNuSgTj9qqHSzd6yD185By9Ty0tYxQVBEPP0VQg05YWB8aB5gvT3y359UZQc7 A/kh4/ItwCF+p/9N7pbqIW+HRifj5S/+V7CkfhoVwH2RA92snwtXPBRR/3X785o9 JwQAg15H7vpHGisIroZjL1vgfLO+DICef8lOnQDEo2+B4ApszwoFiKN+RE9LOfhl ItqxeduMxnGePMij87arVjL3s4lyTqM5z7OVWoCRF6No0Ct9lp6Vb2AF74VBFVSX 2cvsuG8EYkRQUaW/9aBN2EvTQGYN5FBitL0+DnwA9dXhgMgtchQJEoeHRuUld19R 9TurK6nq15TqPf3iIZlAjV9d11llFv6iI3qpTJUdcfTqMk4T4K3yqsGOEhhfmeOP hzPIxe2NHCw2WuNSy452TeprqwgZyLEDS/fhYNoAo+eSDmm4DJQ1OpIZo0iDv3pR 2KZzAUTG4vrkFKJo1OSvXA5MgU8PQzoKZVjo7tKYvVQbYhSo2vprpqhNUU8+JeJF P8pc1JMQ5HOXXEVmiLvmYYoimZqbibJZDjNRV54GhnGymIj8+8DHSBFV+Yf7uFEp m21c8SV+46SElo4YV/sn9qV7yM4S8yWXuVvIl0E0DpxANrsRA50= =RpIw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--