Bug#468202: openoffice.org-writer2latex: still occurring with 0.5-6

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:00:58PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Thanks. The manual says that if the old prerm fails, dpkg should try the > > same operation with the new prerm, which you said is fixed. I didn't see > > it try to do this. > > The problem here mig

Processed: tagging bugs that are closed by packages in NEW as pending

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # the following bugs are closed by packages in NEW > # > tags 408229 pending Bug#408229: ITP: libdbd-mock-perl -- perl module DBD::Mock There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > tags 451250 pending Bug#451250: ITP: babl -- dynamic pixel format conv

Bug#466300: openoffice.org-writer2latex: Cannot be installed

#include * Raphael Hertzog [Fri, Feb 29 2008, 04:04:57PM]: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Daniel Franganillo wrote: > I have a similar failure since the beginning: > Adding extension > /usr/lib/openoffice/share/extension/install/writer2latex.uno.pkg... I cannot find the same exception messages in the l

Bug#468202: openoffice.org-writer2latex: still occurring with 0.5-6

Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Thanks. The manual says that if the old prerm fails, dpkg should try the > same operation with the new prerm, which you said is fixed. I didn't see > it try to do this. The problem here might be that the prerm didn't actually fail in the sense that it returned an exitc

Bug#466300: openoffice.org-writer2latex: Cannot be installed

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Daniel Franganillo wrote: > Last openoofice uprade came with this new dependency, which does not install: > > Setting up openoffice.org-writer2latex (0.5-4) ... > Adding extension > /usr/lib/openoffice/share/extension/install/writer2latex.uno.pkg... > ERROR: JNI exception occu

Bug#468202: openoffice.org-writer2latex: still occurring with 0.5-6

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:24:36PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:29:49AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > > > And you unregistered the extension manually to have a clean state if > > > > > it > > > > > failed befor

Bug#466931: marked as done (Problem whit GCJ_JAWT_DEPENDS in debian/rules script on etch)

Your message dated Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:39:03 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line fixed has caused the Debian Bug report #466931, regarding Problem whit GCJ_JAWT_DEPENDS in debian/rules script on etch to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been

./packages/openofficeorg/2.4/unstable r1014: -1

revno: 1014 committer: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> branch nick: debian timestamp: Fri 2008-02-29 14:37:57 +0100 message: -1 modified: changelog === modified file 'changelog' --- a/changelog 2008-02-28 20:09:08 + +++ b/chang

Bug#467168: marked as done (openoffice.org-calc: does not print control elements)

Your message dated Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:18:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#467168: fixed in openoffice.org 1:2.4.0~rc2-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #467168, regarding openoffice.org-calc: does not print control elements to be marked as done. This means that

Bug#466932: marked as done (Dependecy problem for ure-dbg on etch backport)

Your message dated Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:18:06 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#466932: fixed in openoffice.org 1:2.4.0~rc2-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #466932, regarding Dependecy problem for ure-dbg on etch backport to be marked as done. This means that you cl

openoffice.org_2.4.0~rc2-1_source+amd64+all.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: broffice.org_2.4.0~rc2-1_all.deb to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/broffice.org_2.4.0~rc2-1_all.deb libmythes-dev_2.4.0~rc2-1_amd64.deb to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/libmythes-dev_2.4.0~rc2-1_amd64.deb libuno-cil_2.4.0~rc2-1_amd64.deb to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/libuno-cil_2.4.0~rc2-

Processing of openoffice.org_2.4.0~rc2-1_source+amd64+all.changes

openoffice.org_2.4.0~rc2-1_source+amd64+all.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: openoffice.org-base-core_2.4.0~rc2-1_amd64.deb openoffice.org_2.4.0~rc2-1.dsc openoffice.org-help-et_2.4.0~rc2-1_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ka_2.4.0~rc2-1_all.deb openoffice.org-

Bug#468202: openoffice.org-writer2latex: still occurring with 0.5-6

Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:29:49AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > > And you unregistered the extension manually to have a clean state if it > > > > failed before? Read the buglog... > > > > > > OK, I removed it (forgot the --shared in the

Bug#412029: marked as done (openoffice.org-writer: irregular dots in table of contents)

Your message dated Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:59:08 +0200 (IST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Re: Bug#412029: The 2nd Debian Openoffice.org bug triage - bug #412029 has caused the Debian Bug report #412029, regarding openoffice.org-writer: irregular dots in table of contents

Bug#412029: marked as done (openoffice.org-writer: irregular dots in table of contents)

Your message dated Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:57:43 +0200 (IST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Re: Bug#412029: The 2nd Debian Openoffice.org bug triage - bug #412029 has caused the Debian Bug report #412029, regarding openoffice.org-writer: irregular dots in table of contents

Bug#468202: openoffice.org-writer2latex: still occurring with 0.5-6

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:29:49AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > And you unregistered the extension manually to have a clean state if it > > > failed before? Read the buglog... > > > > OK, I removed it (forgot the --shared in the last attempt), and now the > > package