The latest version needs to be updated on
The latest is 3.6.1 , the webpage currently says 3.6.0 .
the previous version needs to be updated from 3.5.5
thanks for the bug. Is done now.
Download page again needs to adjusted for current releases... and perhaps elevate the 3.6.2 build to prefered "green check mark"
Sorry, rather seems like this download-more page is orphaned, e.g. no active links from current /download content.
Perhaps archive and remove from content?
<http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/> correctly shows
LibreOffice 3.6.2 Final (2012-10-04)
LibreOffice 3.5.6 Final (2012-08-15)
And I definitely would NOT recommend 3.6.2
I see a problem on <http://www.libreoffice.org/download-more/>, there in the heading "LibreOffice 3.6.1 Final (2012-08-29)" is listed, but the links at the bottom correctly show "LibO_3.6.2_Win_x86_install_multi.msi"
I wonder from where that page is linked, may be it is an orphan page?
Can someone please have a look and then close this bug again?
@V Stuart Foote:
Thank you for your attention, but please respect
Do not reopen old bugs only because the are concerning similar problems or symptoms you observe. This bug was concerning obsolete 3.6 download recommendations
(In reply to comment #5)
> @V Stuart Foote:
> Thank you for your attention, but please respect
> Do not reopen old bugs only because the are concerning similar problems or
> symptoms you observe. This bug was concerning obsolete 3.6 download
The content page is still linked--so it is not orphaned as you and I thought.
It is reached exactly as described in the original Discuss maillist posting noted. An active link from http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/ -> to the "(See this page for LibreOffice 3.5)" hypertext.
The again incorrect content needs to be edited. There was no doubt in my mind as I reopened this bug as being in context with an open thread "Which version to get?" on the Discussion list.
In reality the still valid "bug", not originally addressed, is that mixed automated/manual Web content for the download pages are not being maintained as the Web design evolves and additional releases occur. So yes, I could have opened a new bug for that--but doing it this way, I rather think is more appropriate as it keeps it in context "at the release first observed".
My observation to elevate the 3.6.2 build to the preferred "green check mark" was NOT appropriate, strike that.
Updated the pages, fixed the malformed link.
I also removed the translated Hungarian version of that page that was 2 years out of date.