Hi,
Am 26.06.23 um 09:06 schrieb Mike Kaganski:
On 26.06.2023 8:15, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.06.23 um 13:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
my beta1 (didn't try 7.5 yet) builds fail with a new verson of the
fonts-crosextra-carlito fonts (used for Calibri). LibreOffice itself
ships
My 7.5.4
Hi,
Am 27.06.23 um 00:15 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
On 2023-06-18 13:57:01 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
hunspell-dict-ko was fixed/worked around the issue (0.7.94-1) so we can do
this now.
As said it's a no-op for anything except r-cran-hunspell which also is
prepared in experimental
Hi,
Am 27.06.23 um 00:15 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
On 2023-06-18 13:57:01 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
hunspell-dict-ko was fixed/worked around the issue (0.7.94-1) so we can do
this now.
As said it's a no-op for anything except r-cran-hunspell which also is
prepared in experimental
Hi,
Am 26.06.23 um 18:24 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Am 26.06.23 um 08:58 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
On 25 Jun 2023, at 2:16 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[_RUN_] testTdf129810::TestBody
file:///home/rene/LibreOffice/git/libreoffice-7-6//sw/qa/core/text/data//tdf129810.odt:
./sw/qa/core/text/text.cxx
Hi,
Am 26.06.23 um 08:58 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
On 25 Jun 2023, at 2:16 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[_RUN_] testTdf129810::TestBody
file:///home/rene/LibreOffice/git/libreoffice-7-6//sw/qa/core/text/data//tdf129810.odt:
./sw/qa/core/text/text.cxx:1387:testTdf129810::TestBody
greater
Hi,
Am 25.06.23 um 13:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
my beta1 (didn't try 7.5 yet) builds fail with a new verson of the
fonts-crosextra-carlito fonts (used for Calibri). LibreOffice itself ships
My 7.5.4 builds needs the following in addition to the already posted
(where applicable):
rene
Hi,
Am 25.06.23 um 13:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Anyways, this breaks some of sds import tests (I tried this in a
actual beta1 "release" build, not on master - which worked before):
Also:
[build CUT] sw_layoutwriter3
S=/data/ssd/rene/libreoffice-7.6.0~beta1 && I=$S/instd
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
my beta1 (didn't try 7.5 yet) builds fail with a new verson of the
fonts-crosextra-carlito fonts (used for Calibri). LibreOffice itself ships
$ grep carlito download.lst
FONT_CARLITO_TARBALL :=
c74b7223abe75949b4af367942d96c7a-crosextrafonts-carlito-20130920.tar.gz
and Debian contained
Hi,
I get the following in my build of the libreoffice-7-6 branch:
CUT] sw_core_text
S=/home/rene/LibreOffice/git/libreoffice-7-6 && I=$S/instdir &&
W=$S/workdir && mkdir -p $W/CppunitTest/ && rm -fr
$W/CppunitTest/sw_core_text.test.user && cp -r $W/unittest
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 16:52 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1038690 in liborcus reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success
on architectures not tested by upstream.
And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on
mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic qual
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 20.06.23 um 00:03 schrieb Jeffrey Walton:
You can usually uncover them by building the package with CFLAGS=" ...
-fsanitize=undefined ... " and CXXFLAGS=" ... -fsanitize=undefined ...
". The UBsan sanitizer operates on real data. There are no false
positives.
I'd personally assume
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Hi,
Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except
maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes
...
You are the only one who could realistically debug many
Rene Engelhard pushed new branch bookworm at Debian Java Maintainers / hsqldb
--
View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/hsqldb/-/tree/bookworm
You're receiving this email because of your account on salsa.debian.org.
___
pkg-java
Rene Engelhard pushed to branch bullseye at Debian Java Maintainers / hsqldb
Commits:
a768daa1 by Rene Engelhard at 2023-06-15T23:10:31+02:00
fix CVE-2023-1183
- - - - -
0eeccaf4 by Rene Engelhard at 2023-06-17T12:51:54+02:00
update CVE-2023-1183.diff
- - - - -
3 changed files:
- debian
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi again,
some more comments.
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_
removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.
That is hilarious. The subject says we are talking about LibreOffice
here, not
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 21:28 schrieb Rob Landley:
Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
*for libreoffice*.
This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?
GPLv3 doesn't have anything to do with this here.
https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/
Hi,
hunspell-dict-ko was fixed/worked around the issue (0.7.94-1) so we can
do this now.
As said it's a no-op for anything except r-cran-hunspell which also is
prepared in experimental together with hunspell itself.
I might add a libhunspell-private-dev package later when I figured out
Hi,
hunspell-dict-ko was fixed/worked around the issue (0.7.94-1) so we can
do this now.
As said it's a no-op for anything except r-cran-hunspell which also is
prepared in experimental together with hunspell itself.
I might add a libhunspell-private-dev package later when I figured out
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 13:49 schrieb Changwoo Ryu:
2023년 6월 18일 (일) 오후 8:00, Rene Engelhard 님이 작성:
Should I add a Breaks: hunspell-ko (<< 0.7.94) here? Strictly speaking
it's not needed since it's a test failing not the dict being unusable,
but we could go the "better safe than s
Hi,
Am 18.06.23 um 13:49 schrieb Changwoo Ryu:
2023년 6월 18일 (일) 오후 8:00, Rene Engelhard 님이 작성:
Should I add a Breaks: hunspell-ko (<< 0.7.94) here? Strictly speaking
it's not needed since it's a test failing not the dict being unusable,
but we could go the "better safe than s
501 - 600 of 26080 matches
Mail list logo
