Bug#1004402: revoke bugreport

gone. So it seems this reboot was necessary for all new features come into effect. Sorry for the noise. Thanks. MH

Bug#1004402: it's worse

king filemanger to move it where it belongs. Then you have lost it in your libreoffice file history! Greetings MH

Re: Perhaps stupid request

Hi, On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:06:21AM +0100, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote: > Hi .. > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:36:05AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I in doubt, that some people at Sun unstand the hole buildsystem for > >> OpenOffice. > >he, he. I think there are some people at Sun who unde

Re: Building systems

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:34:19AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > Before we start a flamewar here about building scripts, I want to > say that I'm not of the opinion that the upstream OO.o scripts > are totally flawed. > > In comparision with the state of the other OO.o code is it quite good

Re: Perhaps stupid request

Hi, > > I must admit, I fully agree with Bernhard. OpenOffice ibuild system is ugly, > ugly, ugly, and once more ugly. This argument doesn't convince me. arguments don't get better by repeating. > Hope I'll explain managers at work, how build > system is important for developer, that it is more

Re: Perhaps stupid request

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:53:51PM +0100, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote: > Hi ... > > >> build those things) and what doesn't. That's what I want. > >The Problem is, that there is currently only the one large build-script > >from the OpenOffice.org guys. This is like the code an very large > >moloch,