Your message dated Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:26:54 +0100
with message-id <20091212232654.ga11...@rene-engelhard.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#560875: openoffice.org-filter-binfilter: upgrading OOo
plugins requires quitting OOo
has caused the Debian Bug report #560875,
regarding openoffice.org-filter-binfilter: upgrading OOo plugins requires
quitting OOo
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
560875: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560875
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: openoffice.org-filter-binfilter
Severity: wishlist
Upgrading openoffice plugins requests that OOo be terminated before
upgrade as not doing so could possibly lead to problems.
As there are quite frequent OOo upgrades I removed all OOo features that
seem to require some sort of plugin registration.
I wonder if this should also apply to core upgrades (and thus core
packages are in error when they do not request the OOo be exited) or this
could be avoided for plugins as well.
I suspect that upgrading from OOo 2.4 to OOo 3 could be disruptive to
currently running OOo but I did not test such upgrade.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.3
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable'), (290,
'stable-i386'), (280, 'testing-i386'), (270, 'unstable-i386'), (1,
'experimental-i386'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-2-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages openoffice.org-filter-binfilter depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.24 Debian configuration management sy
ii libc6 2.10.2-2 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgcc1 1:4.4.2-3 GCC support library
ii libicu42 4.2.1-3 International Components for Unico
ii libjpeg62 6b-14 The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG
ii libstdc++6 4.4.2-3 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii openoffice.org-core 1:3.1.1-9 full-featured office productivity
ii procps 1:3.2.7-11 /proc file system utilities
ii ure 1.5.1+OOo3.1.1-8 OpenOffice.org UNO runtime environ
openoffice.org-filter-binfilter recommends no packages.
openoffice.org-filter-binfilter suggests no packages.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Upgrading openoffice plugins requests that OOo be terminated before
> upgrade as not doing so could possibly lead to problems.
>
> As there are quite frequent OOo upgrades I removed all OOo features that
> seem to require some sort of plugin registration.
Bad. They are really necessary. And if you can't live with OOo updates after
some days you either do something wrong or should run stable.
> I wonder if this should also apply to core upgrades (and thus core
> packages are in error when they do not request the OOo be exited) or this
> could be avoided for plugins as well.
It does not apply to core updates. -filter-binfilter IMHO is not core,
and it's a component anyway.
And no, it can not be avoided. Why did you think this got added in the first
place?
For extensions unopkg refuses to do stuff when OOo is running even without the
debconf error anyway. You don't want your install failing and the package
system not preventing you from that do you? (Or even worse - as happens -
installing/removing failing but unopkg still returning 0, making all involved
programs thing everything went fine when it didn't)
For components registered to services.rdb you don't want to run into a
situation where installing/removing a a package will corrupt that sevices.rdb
making OOo not start up at all?
> I suspect that upgrading from OOo 2.4 to OOo 3 could be disruptive to
> currently running OOo but I did not test such upgrade.
Actually, it's pretty seamless, but this test is not only about version
upgrades, the errors can happen on *any*.
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: 5.0.3
> APT prefers stable
> APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable'), (290,
> 'stable-i386'), (280, 'testing-i386'), (270, 'unstable-i386'), (1,
> 'experimental-i386'), (1, 'experimental')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Ah, stable/testing/unstable mix. How did I guess already from your first
description something is fishy?
Closing this "bug".
Grüße/Regards,
Rene
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70
--- End Message ---
