Am Freitag, den 11.11.2016, 14:55 +0100 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 02:11:59PM +0100, David Ayers wrote: > > I'm on stable and I've installed libreoffice 1:5.2.3~rc1-4~bpo8+1 from > > backports and firefox ESR. With > > that installation the browser-plugin-libreoffice stopped displaying ODF and > > other Documents managed by > > libreoffice. I suppose all that is needed is a rebuild of the > > browser-plugin-libreoffice for > > the libreoffice version in backports to be made available via backports. > > No. > > $ apt-cache show browser-plugin-libreoffice > Package: browser-plugin-libreoffice > Source: libreoffice > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Version: 1:4.3.3-2+deb8u5
Ah. Okay, thanks! I reported the bug via reportbug browser-plugin-libreoffice and was assuming it would know which package to report it against. I'll try to remember to manually check the source package in the future. > so built from the *libreoffice* source package. If it will was there and was > enabled, a libreoffice build (as for backports) would also build it. > > But: > > > I'm not sure whether this is the correct way to report this bug, but even > > after reading all the > > notices about bug reporting an backports I could easily find this seemed to > > be the post appropriate > > method. Please advise me, if I did something wrong. > > No, it's not a correct way to formulate a wish against a obsolete version. ;) Hmm... well I'm not sure how to submit reports for stable then. Sometimes I get the feeling that one shouldn't report bugs against stable at all. I'm not saying that it isn't futile to report a bug against an obsolete version, but how is a user supposed to know? I'm trying hard learn how to do this the correct way. > And here even where the bug is not even in that version. Because: > > libreoffice (1:4.4.0~alpha1-1) experimental; urgency=low > > * new upstream alpha release > [...] > * debian/rules, debian/control.mozilla.in, patches/install-fixes.diff, > debian/scripts/gid2pkgdirs.sh: remove nsplugin stuff; removed > upstream... > [...] > > -- Rene Engelhard <r...@debian.org> Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:15:33 +0200 > > Got removed upstream. Over two years ago. So browser-plugin-libreoffice isn't > built > since then. Like I said. I'm using stable/bpo and I'd like issues to be fixed in stable/bpo. In this case I understand it is futile since upstream has removed support but if it /were/ just packaging issue as I hoped, I can't imagine a better process to report it. > Yes, I didn't and don't like that either - but fighting against that wasn't > successful. and AFAIK NPAPI support will be phased out in browsers (even > Firefox) > anyway... ACK. > > For example the only reason I marked this with Severity: wishlist is > > because this is a backport issue. > > No, it's a general issue. People might keep browser-plugin-libreoffice on > upgrades > jessie->stretch, too.. ;-( > > One can argue that LO should (now, that it broke, it seems it worked for some > time, or people just didn't report breakage) add a Breaks: > browser-plugin-libreoffice > to properly document it and get it removed on upgrades. > > Will do that. ACK. I agree with your assessment. I'll need to install an older version or hope for a new different integration package in the future. Thanks for handling this. David Ayers -- David Ayers - Team Austria Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://www.fsfe.org) Join the Fellowship of FSFE! [][][] (https://fsfe.org/join) Your donation powers our work! || (http://fsfe.org/donate)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
