On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> [ Hmm, WTF did this not arrive on -openoffice so I just right now see
> it by chance? ]
>
> Hi,
>
> Tim Connors wrote:
> > In running debian sid's openoffice for the first time, it always
> > insisted on popping up errors about:
> >
> > Error when loadi
found 507135 1:2.4.1-12
tag 507135 + help
thanks
Philipp Kern wrote:
> > jar cfm ../unxlnga.pro/class/OOoRunnerLight.jar manifest -C
> > ../unxlnga.pro/class util -C ../unxlnga.pro/class share -C
> > ../unxlnga.pro/class stats -C ../unxlnga.pro/class lib -C
> > ../unxlnga.pro/class complexlib -
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> found 507135 1:2.4.1-12
Bug#507135: openoffice.org_1:3.0.0-5(ia64/experimental): FTBFS: dmake: Error
code 139, while making 'LIGHT'
Bug marked as found in version 1:2.4.1-12.
> tag 507135 + help
Bug#507135: openoffice.org_1:3.0.0-5(ia64/experimental)
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1:3.0.0-5
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of openoffice.org_1:3.0.0-5 on alkman.ayous.org by
> sbuild/ia64 98-farm
> Build started at 20081128-0054
[...]
> ** Using build dependencies
[ Hmm, WTF did this not arrive on -openoffice so I just right now see
it by chance? ]
Hi,
Tim Connors wrote:
> In running debian sid's openoffice for the first time, it always
> insisted on popping up errors about:
>
> Error when loading BASIC of document
> file:///usr/lib/ooo-1.1/share/basic/We
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>> openoffice.org-core really should not conflict with
>> cacao-oj6-jre. Both packages are destined to have a wide audience, and
>
> cacao-oj6-jre is? There is openjdk (and it's not tha
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> unblock 495694 by 495876
Bug#495876: Aborts when used by OOo
Bug#495694: doesn't work with cacao as JVM
Was blocked by: 495876
Blocking bugs of 495694 removed: 495876
> block 507127 by 495876
Bug#495876: Aborts when used by OOo
Bug#507127: openoffice.o
unblock 495694 by 495876
block 507127 by 495876
thanks
Hi,
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> > But the correct fix (imho) is to fix cacao-oj6-jre.
>
> I also agree with that.
>
> About the fact that cacao-oj6 will not make it to testing, I agree.
Oh, actually I wasn't aware of it never entering te
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35
> found 507127 1:3.0.0-5
Bug#507127: openoffice.org-core: Should not conflict with cacao-oj6-jre
Bug marked as found in version 1:3.0.0-5.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
# 1:3.0.0-5 added the same conflicts
bts found 507127 1:3.0.0-5
thanks
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > the conflict is an extreme measure. Isn't it just possible to
> > blacklist cacao-oj6-jre somehow, if openoffice crashes with it ? It is
>
> Maybe (although I currently don't know how/whether that can
Hi,
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> openoffice.org-core really should not conflict with
> cacao-oj6-jre. Both packages are destined to have a wide audience, and
cacao-oj6-jre is? There is openjdk (and it's not that slow as people
suggest FME).
And cacao-oj6-jre (is at least in sid) Priority: extra a
Package: openoffice.org-core
Version: 1:2.4.1-13
Severity: normal
Hello,
openoffice.org-core really should not conflict with
cacao-oj6-jre. Both packages are destined to have a wide audience, and
the conflict is an extreme measure. Isn't it just possible to
blacklist cacao-oj6-jre somehow, if
12 matches
Mail list logo
