Your message dated Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:29:46 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing 233938
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; 20 Feb 2004 20:59:49 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 20 12:59:49 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from (vega.gangfam.com) [210.18.130.9]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AuHkS-0001xF-00; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:59:48 -0800
Received: by vega.gangfam.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 72087538E6; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:30:02 +0530 (IST)
From: Rishi Gangoly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: openoffice.org: fonts on Menu & Body unreadable. They are italics and
bold. Just upgraded and this problem started
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:30:02 +0530
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_18
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_18
X-Spam-Level:
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.0-3
Severity: important
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux vega.gangfam.com 2.4.20-xfs #1 SMP Mit Mär 26 15:37:36 CET 2003
i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages openoffice.org depends on:
ii dictionaries-common 0.16.2 Common utilities for spelling dict
ii openoffice.org-bin 1.1.0-3 OpenOffice.org office suite binary
ii openoffice.org-debian-files 1.1.0-3+2 Debian specific parts of OpenOffic
ii openoffice.org-l10n-en 1.1.0-3 English US language package for op
ii openoffice.org-l10n-en [openo 1.1.0-3 English US language package for op
ii openoffice.org-l10n-pl [openo 1.1.0-3 Polish language package for openof
I'd be happy to send you a screen shot of how it looks if you like. This
happened when I upgraded Open Office last week.
Regards
Rishi
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 233938-close) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Apr 2004 09:30:03 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 14 02:30:03 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.184]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BDgiZ-0006t3-00; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:30:03 -0700
Received: from [212.227.126.207] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de)
by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 1BDgiY-0002dP-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:30:02 +0200
Received: from [80.146.120.140] (helo=shawn)
by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 1BDgiY-0004HF-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:30:02 +0200
Received: by shawn (Postfix, from userid 1050)
id 3BD53D47; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:29:46 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: closing 233938
From: Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:29:46 +0200
X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
auth:b46e2b357ea7d4f6cadf4c99fb902606
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
I'm closing this bug. We haven't heard anything more from the original
submitter, and the followups don't really seem to be related to the
original problem or provide clear information about how to reproduce
remaining problems. We also have #214529 anyway, which seems to be very
similar and concerns 1.1.1.
Chris
