On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 01:25 -0500, John D. Hendrickson wrote:
> Package: openoffice.org
> Version: 1.1.1-3
> Severity: grave
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This is a SEVERE thing. I installed Debian/Sarge's version 1.1.1 of
> openoffice.
>
> While doing backups I found:
>
> /home/xxx/.openoffice/1.1.
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.1-3
Severity: grave
Hello,
This is a SEVERE thing. I installed Debian/Sarge's version 1.1.1 of
openoffice.
While doing backups I found:
/home/xxx/.openoffice/1.1.1/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.html
which contains the full Microsoft EULA: (see clip belo
Your message dated Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:27:57 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed?
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 th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes:
> ca. 40 M -> 60M. How's that 60M bigger?
For the record, I was referring to Installed-Size, not Size, and
probably should have been clearer about that. At any rate, it was
about a 50% increase either way.
> It's now at the old size again (
Your message dated Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:25:25 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295916: openoffice.org-bin: installs unstripped (huge)
binaries
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If t
Your message dated Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:04:57 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#293551: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.3-6
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
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
openoffice.org-mimelnk_1.1.3-6_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
Accepted:
openoffice.org-bin_1.1.3-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org-bin_1.1.3-6_i386.deb
openoffice.org-dev_1.1.3-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org-dev_1.1.3-6_i386.deb
openoffice.org-evolution_1.1.3-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openof
Your message dated Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:04:57 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#293551: fixed in openoffice.org 1.1.3-6
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
openoffice.org_1.1.3-6_source+i386+all.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
openoffice.org-l10n-ru_1.1.3-6_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-ja_1.1.3-6_all.deb
openoffice.org-thesaurus-en-us_1.1.3-6_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-cy_1.1.3-6_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-
Update of /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-deb/debian
In directory gluck:/tmp/cvs-serv14954
Modified Files:
changelog
Log Message:
mention fixed vfs-uno-uri.diff
Index: changelog
===
RCS file: /cvs/debian-openoffice/oo-deb/debian/c
Hi.
Alex Romosan wrote:
> Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > WTF? did you not reopen the old bug but file a new one?
>
> sorry, i get really annoyed when people close a bug without actually
> fixing it (and in this case introducing it since it wasn't there
gar. Get a clue. We ment
Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> WTF? did you not reopen the old bug but file a new one?
sorry, i get really annoyed when people close a bug without actually
fixing it (and in this case introducing it since it wasn't there
before, at least for i386). isn't this the "debian way"? :-(
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 293551
Bug#293551: openoffice.org-bin: Depends on gnomelibs.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> merge 293551 295900
Bug#293551: openoffice.org-bin: Depends on gnomelibs.
Bug#295900: Depends on gnomelibs
Merged 293551 295900.
> Grüße/Regard
reopen 293351
merge 293351 295900
thanks
Alex Romosan wrote:
> Package: openoffice.org-bin
> Version: 1.1.3-5
> Severity: important
>
> bug #293551 complained about the same thing and it got closed with the
> following explanation: build gnomevfs library sanely. obviously this
> is not corect as
Your message dated Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:26:27 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#295831: openoffice.org-kde depends on an unavailable
package
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
