Your message dated Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:05:24 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#225381: Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif
fonts after work-around
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Dec 2003 16:32:29 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 29 10:32:28 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.gmx.de (mail.gmx.net) [213.165.64.20]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Aaw5z-0002vc-00; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:02:03 -0600
Received: (qmail 5965 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Dec 2003 12:02:01 -0000
Received: from p508E157E.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO gmx.net) (80.142.21.126)
by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 13:02:01 +0100
X-Authenticated: #160654
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:05:40 +0100
From: "B. Janssen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221
Thunderbird/0.4
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif fonts after
work-around
- UPDATE
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------060702030807090908080505"
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_29
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_29
X-Spam-Level:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060702030807090908080505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.0-3
---old message---
Attached you will find a error report generated by apt. It basically
says that it can't configure Open Office because the
update-openoffice-dicts program is missing and then skips the whole
setup. Installing the www.openoffice.org version first and then
installing the Debian version over it offers a work-around.
---eom---
This is false. I just repeated the described steps and learned that this
is not working. Apparently i was fooled by the fact that last night the
installation over the old version from www.openoffice.org worked. Today
it doesn't work anymore. Sorry for any inconvenience.
---old message---
BUG TWO - No italic in serif fonts
This, unfortunatly, creates another bug, which i also report here. If
you wish to receive two seperate reports, send an e-mail, please.
At least if you use the above mentioned work-around, Open Office looses
the ability to display serif fonts (like Nimbus Roman, URW Bookman - i
know about the Vera Serif lack of an italic font, which, btw, makes them
almost totally useless) in italic/oblique. Sans Serif fonts work without
a flaw. In Abiword everything works like expected. I am stumped.
---eom---
I can't verify this anymore. The Openoffice.org version is working but
mostly ignores my GTK settings and has AA disabled. The Debian version
honored my GTK settings and had AA enabled. Maybe the cause of the
hiccup is found there.
Sorry for the mail barrage. Kind regards,
Björn
--------------060702030807090908080505
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="OOo_error.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="OOo_error.txt"
Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
openoffice.org is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
7 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 0B of additional disk space will be used.
Setting up myspell-en-us (20030813-1) ...
Setting up openoffice.org (1.1.0-3) ...
localepurge: checking system for new locale ...
localepurge: processing locale files ...
localepurge: processing man pages ...
--------------060702030807090908080505--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 225381-close) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jan 2004 13:55:20 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 09 07:55:19 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from (rover24.cmt) [217.110.227.22]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AevO8-0007TV-00; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:05:16 -0600
Received: from scooby.cmt (scooby [192.168.60.70])
by rover24.cmt (Postfix) with ESMTP
id CC367C7A19; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:05:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: by scooby.cmt (Postfix, from userid 1050)
id C6D333C4AD; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:05:24 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Bug#225381: Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif
fonts after work-around
From: Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:05:24 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
X-Spam-Level:
Submitter wrote in PM:
> > I don't actually see any mention of update-openoffice-dicts in your
> > attached report. Please will you send the complete ouput of the
> > problem.
> >
>
> I can't. I solved the issue by force overwriting dictionaries-common.
> Somehow the original update-openoffice-dict has been damaged. I don't
> know why yet, but i rule out, that the openoffice packages are at
> fault.
> > Why is this different from the existing bug reports?
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214588
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224670
> >
>
> At first glance it isn't!
Closing since there is no extra information that isn't in the duplicates
already.
