Update of /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-deb/debian
In directory gluck:/tmp/cvs-serv2695
Modified Files:
changelog control control.in rules
Log Message:
* debian/control.in:
- modify libdb builddeps to not require it on woody [RE]
- Standards-Version: 3.6.1 (no changes needed)
* de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > like my obligation to package something that was not install-time
> > depended on by any packages. If someone needs gimp-perl for one of their
> > packages, they can package gimp-perl themselves or someone else can feel
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ again readding d-openoffice, this time changing Reply-To, too.
Sorry ]
Hi,
Ari Pollak wrote:
> > that's IMHO a bogus argument (no offense intended). gimp-perl is REAL
> > useful. Similar, I have packaged libooolib-perl (which creates OOo docs)
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ I'll read debian-openoffice to the headers since this is a package
which will FTBFS without gimp-perl until either is "fixed" ]
Hi,
Ari Pollak wrote:
> > gimp-perl used to be built ftom the gimp sourcepkg...
> Correct, and it has been split out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
gimp-perl used to be built ftom the gimp sourcepkg...
Ari Pollak wrote:
> Description:
> gimp - The GNU Image Manipulation Program, stable version 2.0
> gimp-data - Data files for The GIMP, stable version 2.0
> gimp-nonfree - GIF suppo
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.0+1.1.1rc3-1
Severity: normal
Please see the files at http://www.math.lsu.edu/~bogdan/openoffice/
for an example. The underlined words aren't underlined at all in the
PDF version in this case, and everything on the line up to the start
of the underlined text i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#233424: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#224313: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:03:07 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#239193: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.1-1
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
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.0+1.1.1rc3-1
Followup-For: Bug #233938
This is for the most recent version in unstable.
The font used in the menus and file selector appears to be Albany,
which makes it impossible to see the difference between some files,
since the font is uppercase-only. Th
Accepted:
openoffice.org-bin_1.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org-bin_1.1.1-1_i386.deb
openoffice.org-bin_1.1.1-1_s390.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org-bin_1.1.1-1_s390.deb
openoffice.org-bin_1.1.1-1_sparc.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
openoffice.org-mimelnk_1.1.1-1_all.deb: package says section is kde, override
says editors.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and
openoffice.org_1.1.1-1_source+i386+s390+sparc+all.changes uploaded successfully
to localhost
along with the files:
openoffice.org-l10n-pt-br_1.1.1-1_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-fr_1.1.1-1_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-et_1.1.1-1_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-th_1.1.1-1_all.deb
openoffice.org
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:11:19 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#194578: happens still? / more info needed
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
some Debian/MIPS users asked me about it and we have the DPL offering
building/testing on his fast MIPS box, so I'll bring it up again ;)
In December you sent the following mail:
- --- snip
From: xuxianchao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: openoffic
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
openoffice.org_1.1.1-1.diff.gz
openoffice.org_1.1.1-1.dsc
openoffice.org_1.1.1-1_all.deb
openoffice.org_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
cannot
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
openoffice.org_1.1.1-1.dsc
openoffice.org_1.1.1-1_all.deb
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
cannot be processed.
If no .changes file arrives within 23:21:16, the fil
Update of /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-deb/debian
In directory gluck:/tmp/cvs-serv30805
Modified Files:
changelog
Log Message:
1.1.1-1
Index: changelog
===
RCS file: /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-deb/debian/changelog,v
retrieving r
On Wednesday 31 March 2004 14:06, Chris Halls wrote:
> Did you need to make any more changes to the packages?
Well, I have built and I am using, amongst others, backports of X 4.3.0,
fontconfig and libfreetype. So I can't really make a statement regarding a
pure woody system, but besides the rem
OpenOffice.org build:
This package contains the Gnome integration work for
OpenOffice.org, and a much simplified build wrapper, making an OO.o
build / install possible for the common man. It is a staging ground
for up-streaming patches to OO.o.
The major change in this release is
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.0+1.1.1rc3-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid
(I hope this wasn't reported as such already, there are pretty huge amounts
of open bug reports. I tried to check first. Merge at will.)
OOo crash on startup. But this time I guess it's because I already have a
runnin
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.1-1
I was able to reproduce this on the 1.1.1 packaging too so it looks like
this needs fixing.
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 19:42, Lucien Saviot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a good reason why each time setup is run some entries are added
> at the begining of the user
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 10:29, Severin Greimel wrote:
> I tried to build 1.1.0+1.1.1rc3-1 on woody and ran across the following
> problem:
>
> When configured with "--with-system-db" and "--with-system-myspell", the
> build
> fails due to undefined symbols when using backports of both libdb3 and
Hi Jason,
If we use the debian packages, can these facilities be added in later?
Or is it too late because they have been compiled out of the code?
I've been trying to use the Report Wizard and the docbook filter and
haven't been able to make them work - this might explain why.
Yes, neither o
Hi,
I tried to build 1.1.0+1.1.1rc3-1 on woody and ran across the following
problem:
When configured with "--with-system-db" and "--with-system-myspell", the build
fails due to undefined symbols when using backports of both libdb3 and
libmyspell3 that are built with gcc-2.95. It works if I use
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 06:52, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> If we use the debian packages, can these facilities be added in later?
> Or is it too late because they have been compiled out of the code?
Jason, I'm afraid not. To enable support for these features we have to
build the packages using a JDK,
33 matches
Mail list logo
