tag 666565 + moreinfo
tag 666565 + unreproducible
thanks
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:40:17PM +0200, Domenico Cufalo wrote:
> Package: libreoffice-common
> Version: 1:3.5.2~rc2-1
> Severity: important
> File: /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice
Yay, reportbug nonsense. Filing it against libreoffic
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 666565 + moreinfo
Bug #666565 [libreoffice-common] /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice: Menu
items are not displayed
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> tag 666565 + unreproducible
Bug #666565 [libreoffice-common] /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice:
666573
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: libreoffice
Version: 1:3.4.6-2
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20120331 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 666573 - sid
Bug #666573 [src:libreoffice] libreoffice: FTBFS: gversionmacros.h:28:2: error:
#error "Only can be included directly."
Removed tag(s) sid.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
666573
tag 666573 - sid
thanks
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:20:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: libreoffice
> Version: 1:3.4.6-2
> Severity: serious
> Tags: wheezy sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20120331 qa-ftbfs
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Source: libreoffice
Version: 1:3.4.6-2
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20120331 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Relevant part:
> x86_64-linux-gn
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:00:01PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:43:23PM +0200, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> > aptitude safe-upgrade fails the same. terminal-capture attached.
> omg. safe-upgrade.. on sid...
Of course, what else?
full-upgrade tries to purge half of
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 19:24 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Do as it says. It doesn't say that for no reason. The unopkg in your first
> attempt failed
> and that kept the .lock it seems.
Well I wouldn't know how this file was created by what I did.
> Yes, noticed that too. But that's not a grave
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:24:53PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > I deleted some log file manually and then the upgrade of all packages
> > worked (after three iterations or so); however, still with endless
> > errors, th
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:43:23PM +0200, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:24:53PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > > I deleted some log file manually and then the upgrade of all packages
>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I deleted some log file manually and then the upgrade of all packages
> worked (after three iterations or so); however, still with endless
> errors, that a stylesheet cannot be parsed.
Yes, noticed that too. (see below)
>
I did several more iterations see the log for details.
I deleted some log file manually and then the upgrade of all packages
worked (after three iterations or so); however, still with endless
errors, that a stylesheet cannot be parsed.
Cheers,
Chris.
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Fo
Hi Rene.
Trying to answer all your questions:
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 16:22 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > The recent package upgrade fails with:
> Have a *full* log?
I tried it again (with no success) this time a complete log is
attached).
> And what did you do for a upgrade?
aptitude, markin
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:16:31PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > And no - neither do I care about *ANY* upgrade method besides
> > apt-get/aptitude. Especially not cupt and
> > graphical stuff like synaptic.
>
> T
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> And no - neither do I care about *ANY* upgrade method besides
> apt-get/aptitude. Especially not cupt and
> graphical stuff like synaptic.
That said, all those ^M seemed like copy and pasting from some graphical
thingy.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 666523 + unreproducible
Bug #666523 [libreoffice] libreoffice: upgrade to 1:3.5.2~rc2-1 utterly fails
Added tag(s) unreproducible.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
666523: http://bugs.debian.org
tag 666523 + unreproducible
thanks
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Will try one again.
I)
apt-get (wheezy + libreoffice -> sid):
root@frodo:/# apt-get dist-upgrade
[...]
Preparing to replace ure 3.4.6-2 (using .../ure_3.5.2~rc2-1_amd64.deb) ...
Unpacking replac
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 666523 serious
Bug #666523 [libreoffice] libreoffice: upgrade to 1:3.5.2~rc2-1 utterly fails
Severity set to 'serious' from 'grave'
> tag 666523 + moreinfo
Bug #666523 [libreoffice] libreoffice: upgrade to 1:3.5.2~rc2-1 utterly fails
Adde
severity 666523 serious
tag 666523 + moreinfo
thanks
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 03:32:14PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Package: libreoffice
> Version: 1:3.5.2~rc2-1
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
No, if at least, it would be serious. Because if installed cor
Package: libreoffice
Version: 1:3.5.2~rc2-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi.
The recent package upgrade fails with:
Preparing to replace libreoffice-officebean 1:3.4.6-2 (using
.../libreoffice-officebean_1%3a3.5.2~rc2-1_amd64.deb) ...^M
Unpacking replacement libreoff
20 matches
Mail list logo
