Hi,
Am 07.03.24 um 21:07 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 07/03/2024 20:55, Rene Engelhard wrote:
unstable is unstable. Don't use it if you can't handle stuff like
this. And yes, be it even for more days or however it takes.
The usual mantra. However, if no one use unstable and debug it to make
Hi,
Am 07.03.24 um 20:33 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 07/03/2024 19:58, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> My point also was that your reopening of the bug is wrong since the
maintainer can't do anything about it.
E.g. if libreoffice wasn't rebuilt against most t64 r-deps since it a)
also has librar
Am 07.03.24 um 19:21 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 07/03/2024 18:57, Rene Engelhard wrote:
That one is tracked and will get appropriate bin-NMUs from the
release team, I am sure.
It is right that this uninstallability is "being part of the normal
things due to transition".
Am 07.03.24 um 09:55 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 07/03/2024 07:25, Kevin Bowling wrote:
As of this evening these are the packages that currently have broken
deps on amd64 for me:
gstreamer1.0-plugins-good gstreamer1.0-pulseaudio
libkf5akonadisearch-bin libkf5akonadisearch-plugins occt-misc
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1065461 in libreoffice 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 05.03.24 um 00:47 schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
Preparing to unpack .../libreoffice-common_4%3a24.2.1-3_all.deb ...
Unpacking libreoffice-common (4:24.2.1-3) over (4:24.2.0-1) ...
dpkg: error processing archive
/var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-common_4%3a24.2.1-3_all.deb
Hi,
Am 05.03.24 um 00:47 schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
Preparing to unpack .../libreoffice-common_4%3a24.2.1-3_all.deb ...
Unpacking libreoffice-common (4:24.2.1-3) over (4:24.2.0-1) ...
dpkg: error processing archive
/var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-common_4%3a24.2.1-3_all.deb
Hi,
Am 05.03.24 um 00:47 schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
Preparing to unpack .../libreoffice-common_4%3a24.2.1-3_all.deb ...
Unpacking libreoffice-common (4:24.2.1-3) over (4:24.2.0-1) ...
dpkg: error processing archive
/var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-common_4%3a24.2.1-3_all.deb
:28.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+winff (1.6.3+dfsg-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+ * only build-depend on needed libreoffice-draw, libreoffice-writer;
+remove extraneous libreoffice, ure-java, default-jre
+
+ -- Rene Engelhard Mon, 04 Mar 2024 20:50:28 +
+
winff (1.6.3+dfsg-1
forwarded 1065448 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160033
thanks
Hi,
Am 04.03.24 um 21:58 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Package: libreoffice-common
Version: 4:24.2.0-1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
Then you should have filed it upstream :). Didn't write the reportbug
text
forwarded 1065448 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160033
thanks
Hi,
Am 04.03.24 um 21:58 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Package: libreoffice-common
Version: 4:24.2.0-1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
Then you should have filed it upstream :). Didn't write the reportbug
text
Package: libreoffice-common
Version: 4:24.2.0-1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: pe...@pblackman.plus.com
Dear Maintainer,
When creating pdf files from odt files, soffice writes a CreationDate field
which contains the actual build date/time. This varies with every build.
For an
Package: libreoffice-common
Version: 4:24.2.0-1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: pe...@pblackman.plus.com
Dear Maintainer,
When creating pdf files from odt files, soffice writes a CreationDate field
which contains the actual build date/time. This varies with every build.
For an
Hi,
Am 02.03.24 um 18:42 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
So as this library is now libxmlsec1t64-openssl this Build-Depends: is
now unfullfillable.
At least for 32bit archs like armel/armhf (which don't have Provides:
libxmlsec1-openssl) or a future package-named package due to ABI changes
(like
Hi,
Am 02.03.24 um 18:42 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
So as this library is now libxmlsec1t64-openssl this Build-Depends: is
now unfullfillable.
At least for 32bit archs like armel/armhf (which don't have Provides:
libxmlsec1-openssl) or a future package-named package due to ABI changes
(like
Source: lasso
Severity: serious
Version: 2.8.2-1
Tags: patch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: time-t
Hi,
I just saw lasso has
libxmlsec1-dev,
libxmlsec1-openssl,
in Build-Depends. What for? If this was versioned this could be
understandable, but it isn't.
And
Source: lasso
Severity: serious
Version: 2.8.2-1
Tags: patch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: time-t
Hi,
I just saw lasso has
libxmlsec1-dev,
libxmlsec1-openssl,
in Build-Depends. What for? If this was versioned this could be
understandable, but it isn't.
And
Hi,
Am 27.02.24 um 19:26 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Then I more wonder why it failed the test on -03 and "worked" on -05 now
where the difference is just -O0 vs. -O2.
I did "quick" tests (with some "shortcut" hacks to get the test ran
without building everything)
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1064890 in xmlsec1 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:
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1064890 in xmlsec1 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 27.02.24 um 11:43 schrieb Andreas Beckmann via debian-xml-sgml-pkgs:
Package: libxmlsec1-dev,libxmlsec1-doc
Version: 1.2.39-2
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install
because it tries
Hi,
Am 27.02.24 um 11:43 schrieb Andreas Beckmann via debian-xml-sgml-pkgs:
Package: libxmlsec1-dev,libxmlsec1-doc
Version: 1.2.39-2
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install
because it tries
Hi,
Am 27.02.24 um 19:05 schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
On 2024-02-27 10:59, René Engelhard wrote:
Is rv-osuosl-05 hardware which supports this? (db.debian.org/machines.cgi doesn't really
shed any light here; they all say "Hifive Unmatched").
Just running a build on my machine again, too.
All
Source: libreoffice
Version: 4:24.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 4:24.2.0-3
Am 23.02.24 um 17:14 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Hi,
Am 23.02.24 um 08:02 schrieb HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai):
Sorry, resending to BTS, not to debian-openoffice.
No problem, that -1 redirects the bug
Source: libreoffice
Version: 4:24.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 4:24.2.0-3
Am 23.02.24 um 17:14 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Hi,
Am 23.02.24 um 08:02 schrieb HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai):
Sorry, resending to BTS, not to debian-openoffice.
No problem, that -1 redirects the bug
Hi,
Am 23.02.24 um 08:02 schrieb HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai):
Sorry, resending to BTS, not to debian-openoffice.
No problem, that -1 redirects the bug reports to debian-openoffice is a bug.
(Fixed in later versions but those are stuck after the t64 transition.)
Regards,
Rene
Hi,
Am 23.02.24 um 08:02 schrieb HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai):
Sorry, resending to BTS, not to debian-openoffice.
No problem, that -1 redirects the bug reports to debian-openoffice is a bug.
(Fixed in later versions but those are stuck after the t64 transition.)
Regards,
Rene
Hi,
Am 14.02.24 um 15:50 schrieb Escuelas Linux:
Running 'make' alone fails because all warnings are treated as errors,
so I added the following parameters
make CFLAGS="-Wno-error" CXXFLAGS="-Wno-error -g1"
Again: --disable-werror.
No need to fiddle with CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS to add
Hi,
Am 14.02.24 um 17:48 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Am 14.02.24 um 17:40 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
lobasis is a totally nonsensical name to begin with, exposing
internals (basis what?) to the public noone needs.
More accurate: Once-have-been internals. There one was a oobasis
directory in OOo
Hi,
Am 14.02.24 um 17:40 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
lobasis is a totally nonsensical name to begin with, exposing internals
(basis what?) to the public noone needs.
NO distro calls their packages, ebuilds or whatever lobasis. Neither do
they come out of LOs build system directly (as those
Hi,
Am 14.02.24 um 17:04 schrieb Escuelas Linux:
[ the LO .debs date after Debian did packages and that was carried over
since ever. oobasisX.Y was done in some OOo time when they thougt they
should do some "debs", after which they just shipped rpms you needed to
use alien for ]
Just one
Hi,
Am 11.02.24 um 22:10 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
I just tried a rebuild of libreoffice with
DEB_HOST_MAINT_OPTIONS="abi=+time64" to actually see what happens.
DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS of course. I set the correct one (and
libreoffice and xmlsec1 did pick it up) but just "th
Source: gpgme1.0
Version: 1.18.0-4.1~exp1
Severity: important
[ let's no get into a discussion on the sense of this transition. I
actually believe this isn't needed and we can leave 32 bit die in 2038
but anyways...
The transition is ongoing now in experimental. So be it ]
Hi,
I just
Source: gnutls28
Version: 3.8.3-1.1~exp1
Severity: important
[ let's no get into a discussion on the sense of this transition. I
actually believe this isn't needed and we can leave 32 bit die in 2038
but anyways...
The transition is ongoing now in experimental. So be it ]
Hi,
I just tried
Package: java-common
Version: 0.75
Severity: minor
Hi,
$ grep java_unsupported_architectures /usr/share/java/java_defaults.mk
java_unsupported_architectures = hppa hurd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64
kfreebsd-i386 hurd-i386 powerpcspe s390 sparc
[...]
hurd-i386 is here twice.
Regards,
Rene
__
This
Package: java-common
Version: 0.75
Severity: minor
Hi,
$ grep java_unsupported_architectures /usr/share/java/java_defaults.mk
java_unsupported_architectures = hppa hurd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64
kfreebsd-i386 hurd-i386 powerpcspe s390 sparc
[...]
hurd-i386 is here twice.
Regards,
Rene
Hi agai,
Am 08.02.24 um 06:37 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
[...] Debian. LTO works.
Need to correct myself on this. LTO actually is disabled ...
And because of exactly this case I (also) don't use --enable-mergelibs
on 32bit architectures.
... because of this (since for each of the individual
Hi,
please don't break threads.
Am 10.02.24 um 00:53 schrieb Escuelas Linux:
-"Debian still ships LibreOffice on 32bit archs, as do other
distributions."
Oh! Thanks for the tip! I was not aware that Debian even has binary
LibreOffice 24.2 32-bit packages, albeit in the unstable branch.
Hi again,
more info:
Am 08.02.24 um 06:37 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Hi,
Am 07.02.24 um 20:49 schrieb Dan Horák:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:51:06 -0600
Escuelas Linux wrote:
The release notes for the latest version of LibreOffice (24.2)
state that
"The minimum requirements for bui
Hi,
Am 07.02.24 um 20:49 schrieb Dan Horák:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:51:06 -0600
Escuelas Linux wrote:
The release notes for the latest version of LibreOffice (24.2) state that
"The minimum requirements for building and running LibreOffice on Linux
have been raised from Red Hat Enterprise
sorry, works. setting to FIXED again
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to libreoffice in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039021
Title:
NO-GUI headless convert-to function error in 7.6.1.2 60(Build:2)
Status in
there's still
[pid 1261847] openat(AT_FDCWD,
"/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/libcuilo.so", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1
ENOENT (No such file or directory)
in the strace and after installing libreoffice-core the conversion
succeeds.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
no, sorry, the convert of gpredict (see http://bugs.debian.org/1058653)
still fails with the patch applied
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to libreoffice in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039021
Title:
NO-GUI
bin/lo-xlate-lang |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
New commits:
commit 82e90e1b2a8873334f1fcd00dde769e45af37b5b
Author: Rene Engelhard
AuthorDate: Sat Jan 27 18:03:37 2024 +0100
Commit: René Engelhard
CommitDate: Tue Jan 30 21:03:34 2024 +0100
add hy to bin/lo-xlate-lang
bin/lo-xlate-lang |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
New commits:
commit be1a96a9090f7b71598882f6f9a2ac5bf1ce6e58
Author: Rene Engelhard
AuthorDate: Sat Jan 27 18:03:37 2024 +0100
Commit: Christian Lohmaier
CommitDate: Mon Jan 29 11:38:07 2024 +0100
add hy to bin/lo-xlate
: Rene Engelhard
AuthorDate: Tue Jul 11 17:16:54 2023 +0200
Commit: Stephan Bergmann
CommitDate: Sun Jan 28 19:16:37 2024 +0100
add sparc64, riscv64 and loongarch64 test extensions
forgotten in 3cb45765f2accfa749cc56a087059600ec467f28
tag 1020482 + pending
thanks
Am 24.01.24 um 23:44 schrieb Soren Stoutner:
Control: tags -1 + patch
I submitted an MR at:
https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice-dictionaries/-/merge_requests/6
tag 1020482 + pending
thanks
Am 24.01.24 um 23:44 schrieb Soren Stoutner:
Control: tags -1 + patch
I submitted an MR at:
https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice-dictionaries/-/merge_requests/6
Hi,
oops.
Am 21.01.24 um 15:35 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Here the new libxml2 removes functions and symbol versions used by
gazillions of packages over the whole of the Debian archive.
And no, the exact point of Debian library package names is that they
HAVE to change on ABI changes
Hi,
oops.
Am 21.01.24 um 15:35 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Here the new libxml2 removes functions and symbol versions used by
gazillions of packages over the whole of the Debian archive.
And no, the exact point of Debian library package names is that they
HAVE to change on ABI changes
Hi,
oops.
Am 21.01.24 um 15:35 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Here the new libxml2 removes functions and symbol versions used by
gazillions of packages over the whole of the Debian archive.
And no, the exact point of Debian library package names is that they
HAVE to change on ABI changes
Hi,
Am 21.01.24 um 15:27 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 21/01/2024 14:49, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Exactly that is the point of #1059040. The binary packages have to be
renamed. (Then rebuild against libxml2-WHATEVERNEW). Then a rebuild
LO will have a proper dependency on libxml2-WHATEVERNEW.
I
Hi,
Am 21.01.24 um 15:27 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 21/01/2024 14:49, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Exactly that is the point of #1059040. The binary packages have to be
renamed. (Then rebuild against libxml2-WHATEVERNEW). Then a rebuild
LO will have a proper dependency on libxml2-WHATEVERNEW.
I
Hi,
Am 21.01.24 um 15:27 schrieb Eric Valette:
On 21/01/2024 14:49, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Exactly that is the point of #1059040. The binary packages have to be
renamed. (Then rebuild against libxml2-WHATEVERNEW). Then a rebuild
LO will have a proper dependency on libxml2-WHATEVERNEW.
I
Hi,
Am 21.01.24 um 14:44 schrieb Eric Valette:
ii libxml2 2.12.3+dfsg-0exp1
And this one *from experimental* changed ABI (see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059040). Don't
install it on systems you don't want breakage in.
Bingo you got it. However this means that
Hi,
Am 21.01.24 um 14:44 schrieb Eric Valette:
ii libxml2 2.12.3+dfsg-0exp1
And this one *from experimental* changed ABI (see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059040). Don't
install it on systems you don't want breakage in.
Bingo you got it. However this means that
Hi,
Am 21.01.24 um 14:44 schrieb Eric Valette:
ii libxml2 2.12.3+dfsg-0exp1
And this one *from experimental* changed ABI (see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059040). Don't
install it on systems you don't want breakage in.
Bingo you got it. However this means that
Hi,
Am 12.01.24 um 17:56 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
experimental, the configure script does detect the absence of the
xmlNanoFTPNewCtxt function in the libxml2 library (version
2.12.3+dfsg-0exp1) and disables the call to the xmlNanoFTP* functions.
Hi,
Am 12.01.24 um 17:56 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
experimental, the configure script does detect the absence of the
xmlNanoFTPNewCtxt function in the libxml2 library (version
2.12.3+dfsg-0exp1) and disables the call to the xmlNanoFTP* functions.
Am Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:50:25AM -0700 schrieb Soren Stoutner:
> Would you be interested in a patch to implement this functionality?
You can do that, for sure.
(Actually during debconf last year I did a quick and dirty solution to
this - excluding the special-case-needed ones, but dropped the
Am Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:50:25AM -0700 schrieb Soren Stoutner:
> Would you be interested in a patch to implement this functionality?
You can do that, for sure.
(Actually during debconf last year I did a quick and dirty solution to
this - excluding the special-case-needed ones, but dropped the
This is the same as
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158695
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 158695 ***
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to libreoffice in Ubuntu.
Hi,
Am 13.01.24 um 13:59 schrieb rhys:
No.
You are AGAIN assuming what I am talking about.
Maybe because of how you write...
I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor.
Obviously you don't. Or at least are not aware about consequences.
Since you still offer
Hi,
Am 13.01.24 um 13:59 schrieb rhys:
No.
You are AGAIN assuming what I am talking about.
Maybe because of how you write...
I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor.
Obviously you don't. Or at least are not aware about consequences.
Since you still offer
Hi,
Am 13.01.24 um 13:59 schrieb rhys:
No.
You are AGAIN assuming what I am talking about.
Maybe because of how you write...
I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor.
Obviously you don't. Or at least are not aware about consequences.
Since you still offer
tag 1060255 + unreproducible
tag 1060255 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
Am 08.01.24 um 11:32 schrieb Артём:
Package: libreoffice-l10n-ru
Version: 4:7.4.7-1+deb12u1
Severity: |important|
|Tags: ||l10n|
|
|
For example, in LibreOffice Start Center, some text in the options
Which "text in the
tag 1060255 + unreproducible
tag 1060255 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
Am 08.01.24 um 11:32 schrieb Артём:
Package: libreoffice-l10n-ru
Version: 4:7.4.7-1+deb12u1
Severity: |important|
|Tags: ||l10n|
|
|
For example, in LibreOffice Start Center, some text in the options
Which "text in the
Hi,
Am 07.01.24 um 04:38 schrieb Steve Langasek:
The ordering here would be:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
- the source packages which need an ABI change
("source-packages"+"lfs-and-depends-time_t") and do not already have
versions in
Hi,
Am 07.01.24 um 04:38 schrieb Steve Langasek:
The ordering here would be:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
- the source packages which need an ABI change
("source-packages"+"lfs-and-depends-time_t") and do not already have
versions in
Hi,
Am 07.01.24 um 04:38 schrieb Steve Langasek:
The ordering here would be:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
- the source packages which need an ABI change
("source-packages"+"lfs-and-depends-time_t") and do not already have
versions in
Hi,
Am 07.01.24 um 02:01 schrieb Steve Langasek:
If you say you are going to fix eventual breakage (and not ignoring
the test
results!) and if that means fixing asm on all affected archs, then it's OK
:)
Well, yes; though I hope we would see some help from e.g. arm porters if
there were
Hi,
Am 07.01.24 um 02:01 schrieb Steve Langasek:
If you say you are going to fix eventual breakage (and not ignoring
the test
results!) and if that means fixing asm on all affected archs, then it's OK
:)
Well, yes; though I hope we would see some help from e.g. arm porters if
there were
Hi,
Am 07.01.24 um 02:01 schrieb Steve Langasek:
If you say you are going to fix eventual breakage (and not ignoring
the test
results!) and if that means fixing asm on all affected archs, then it's OK
:)
Well, yes; though I hope we would see some help from e.g. arm porters if
there were
Hi,
Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
[...]
What about the suggestion to not push changes to experimental for packages
that already have new versions in experimental, and do the binary package
Hi,
Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
[...]
What about the suggestion to not push changes to experimental for packages
that already have new versions in experimental, and do the binary package
Hi,
Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
[...]
What about the suggestion to not push changes to experimental for packages
that already have new versions in experimental, and do the binary package
Hi Steve,
Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
I think at that point in time one should know what breaks and whatnot.
Archive rebuild?
(Probably in stages)
What kind of breakage are you looking to
Hi Steve,
Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
I think at that point in time one should know what breaks and whatnot.
Archive rebuild?
(Probably in stages)
What kind of breakage are you looking to
Hi Steve,
Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default
flags
I think at that point in time one should know what breaks and whatnot.
Archive rebuild?
(Probably in stages)
What kind of breakage are you looking to
Hi,
Am 05.01.24 um 09:17 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- Packages that could not be analyzed for whatever reason are still
assumed to have an ABI that's sensitive to time_t and have to be included
in the transition. Happily, due to improvements in this run of the number
of packages that
Hi,
Am 05.01.24 um 09:17 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- Packages that could not be analyzed for whatever reason are still
assumed to have an ABI that's sensitive to time_t and have to be included
in the transition. Happily, due to improvements in this run of the number
of packages that
Hi,
Am 05.01.24 um 09:17 schrieb Steve Langasek:
- Packages that could not be analyzed for whatever reason are still
assumed to have an ABI that's sensitive to time_t and have to be included
in the transition. Happily, due to improvements in this run of the number
of packages that
forwarded 974220 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140652
tag 974220 + upstream
thanks
Am 05.01.24 um 15:01 schrieb Claudio Ferreira:
Yes. I have this software. Is common in the Brazilian market.
I tried now to past a text and it works as expected. For me, this bug
can be
forwarded 974220 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140652
tag 974220 + upstream
thanks
Am 05.01.24 um 15:01 schrieb Claudio Ferreira:
Yes. I have this software. Is common in the Brazilian market.
I tried now to past a text and it works as expected. For me, this bug
can be
Hi,
Am 03.01.24 um 16:47 schrieb James Addison:
Source: clucene-core
Followup-For: Bug #1059805
X-Debbugs-Cc: r...@debian.org, thorsten.behr...@allotropia.de
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 18:24:19 +0100, Rene wrote:
LibreOffice created a patch to clucene to make their help pages
reproducible. Maybe we
configure.ac |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
New commits:
commit a9008aa942c1f98f8b00b2bd2f73edc576713e92
Author: Rene Engelhard
AuthorDate: Mon Jan 1 18:13:20 2024 +0100
Commit: Thorsten Behrens
CommitDate: Mon Jan 1 23:28:32 2024 +0100
update
configure.ac |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
New commits:
commit a63480d6e5f11bd258431e1cfbb98c594ce4a741
Author: Rene Engelhard
AuthorDate: Mon Jan 1 18:13:20 2024 +0100
Commit: Thorsten Behrens
CommitDate: Mon Jan 1 23:28:47 2024 +0100
update
Source: clucene-core
Version: 2.3.3.4+dfsg-1.1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: timestamps randomness
Affects: libreoffice-help-en-us libreoffice-help-ca libreoffice-help-cs
libreoffice-help-da libreoffice-help-de libreoffice-help-dz
Hi,
Am 27.12.23 um 19:15 schrieb Benjamin Barenblat:
Although doing a transition now will break some packages in sid, I
believe waiting is likely to cause more issues. Upstreams (LibreOffice
in particular) are starting to use features from the new version of
Abseil,
Actually it's not
Hi,
Am 27.12.23 um 19:15 schrieb Benjamin Barenblat:
Although doing a transition now will break some packages in sid, I
believe waiting is likely to cause more issues. Upstreams (LibreOffice
in particular) are starting to use features from the new version of
Abseil,
Actually it's not
Hi,
Am 25.12.23 um 22:57 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
I didn't file it for the plain build issue. Nevertheless, if it broke so
many projects you probably should do a full-fledged rebuild and send
Well, mitigated by 2.12.3, but still.
But again, this is completely off-topic to what I filed
Hi,
Am 25.12.23 um 22:57 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
I didn't file it for the plain build issue. Nevertheless, if it broke so
many projects you probably should do a full-fledged rebuild and send
Well, mitigated by 2.12.3, but still.
But again, this is completely off-topic to what I filed
Hi,
Am 25.12.23 um 22:33 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The tests are still failing and there is no patch anywhere yet, see
Sorry, link got lost:
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158423
and c) you ignore the actual issue here at hand and that is that the new
libxml2 breaks
Hi,
Am 25.12.23 um 22:33 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
The tests are still failing and there is no patch anywhere yet, see
Sorry, link got lost:
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158423
and c) you ignore the actual issue here at hand and that is that the new
libxml2 breaks
Hi,
Am 25.12.23 um 16:31 schrieb Aron Xu:
Hi Rene,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:39 AM Rene Engelhard wrote:
Am Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 08:03:56PM +0100 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
LibreOffice builds (patch available), but doesn't yet build with 2.12.
"... but doesn't yet succeed the tests with
Hi,
Am 25.12.23 um 16:31 schrieb Aron Xu:
Hi Rene,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:39 AM Rene Engelhard wrote:
Am Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 08:03:56PM +0100 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
LibreOffice builds (patch available), but doesn't yet build with 2.12.
"... but doesn't yet succeed the tests with
retitle 1059158 libreoffice-core-nogui: Can't open a spreadsheet from
python uno on 32bits because libforuilo.so is missing.
thanks
Hi,
Am 20.12.23 um 18:42 schrieb Gerard Henri Pille:
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
So this is even
retitle 1059158 libreoffice-core-nogui: Can't open a spreadsheet from
python uno on 32bits because libforuilo.so is missing.
thanks
Hi,
Am 20.12.23 um 18:42 schrieb Gerard Henri Pille:
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
So this is even
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1052740 in graphite2 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 23.12.23 um 11:43 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Hi,
Am 23.12.23 um 02:40 schrieb Bastian Germann:
graph_legend.dot should have quotes around the font name references.
Ah, thanks. Unfortunately this is a generated file...
And yes, I also noticed that the FreeSans.ttf is at fault. Indeed I
101 - 200 of 26070 matches
Mail list logo
