https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #36 from Todd ---
(In reply to Michael Warner from comment #35)
> (In reply to Todd from comment #34)
> > After TWELVE YEARS this bug is still not resolved as of 7.3.1.3
>
> Feel free to submit a patch.
Feel free to assign a
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #35 from Michael Warner
---
(In reply to Todd from comment #34)
> After TWELVE YEARS this bug is still not resolved as of 7.3.1.3
Feel free to submit a patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #34 from Todd ---
After TWELVE YEARS this bug is still not resolved as of 7.3.1.3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #33 from Christian Lehmann ---
On Ubuntu 16.04, I had LO 6.1.3.2 installed and now installed LO 6.1.4.2
(../deb.tar.gz). Without any feedback, the installer installed the new version
in parallel, though in a completely differen
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #32 from Todd ---
(In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #31)
> I put it back to NEW since I've nothing more to suggest now.
I just got nailed upgrading from 5.1 to 5.2.
This bug is so exasperating!
If the developers what se
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
Julien Nabet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #31 from Julien Nabet --
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #30 from Todd ---
(In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #28)
> Please uninstall any LO rpm package, then clean your rpm directories and try
> again to download the whole 4.3.4 LO version from official website (see
> http://www.libreo
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #29 from Todd ---
(In reply to Todd from comment #27)
> Okay, now this is embarrassing. I posted the following over on Red Hat for
> LibreCAD:
And I did it again! My last post was suppose to be for bug "76227" :'( :'(
:'(
--
You
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
Julien Nabet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #28 from Julien Nabe
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #27 from Todd ---
Okay, now this is embarrassing. I posted the following over on Red Hat for
LibreCAD:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113380#c5
$ su root -c "rpm -Uvh LibreOffice_4.3.4.1_Linux_x86-64_rpm/RPMS/*.rpm
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #25 from Todd ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> BTW: I wonder what Linux distribution the customers use
Hi Petr,
I get them from here:
http://www.libreoffice.org/download
After I get an announcement in my eMail. I am not using "nigh
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #26 from Todd ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Note that "rpm -U" currently updates the package only of the same minor
> version, e.g 4.1.0.4 to 4.1.1.2. It does not update 4.1.0.4 to 4.2.0.4
> because the package names are different
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #24 from Petr Mladek ---
Hint: One possibility would be to remove the version from the package names but
keep them in the filenames. Then people could install more versions in parallel
using "rpm -i" and update to the latest version u
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #23 from Joel Madero ---
Petr - I pointed out something similar. It sounds like the original reporter
wants all users to have "latest and greatest" as soon as it comes out and that
users who want the latest and greatest don't know how
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #22 from Petr Mladek ---
I am a bit confused by the comment #18.
AFAIK, only the minor releases are installed in parallel on Linux. For example
4.1.0.4 is installed in parallel with 4.0.5.2. By other words, LO 4.1 is
installed in par
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #21 from Joel Madero ---
and - this would be the right email to email me to ;) Apologies was just doing
bug cleanup and had logged into admin account :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #20 from QA Administrators ---
The bug tracker is not on our infrastructure so we have almost no control - we
are currently trying to migrate to our own but it's quite a bit of work. If you
have some spare cycles to help with anything
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #19 from Todd ---
(In reply to comment #18)
"who would have though" should be "who would have thought"
"My customer" should be "My customers". I have a lot more than one.
Has anyone request an "Edit" function for the bug tracker?
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #18 from Todd ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> @Todd - while I completely understand - we make it pretty clear that our
> "standard user" should not be using a x.x.0 release - this only occurs when
> you do because we purposely like to
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #17 from Joel Madero ---
@Todd - while I completely understand - we make it pretty clear that our
"standard user" should not be using a x.x.0 release - this only occurs when you
do because we purposely like to easily be able to run re
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
--- Comment #16 from Todd ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The more I think about this the more I think it's a valid enhancement
> request. Updating and marking as NEW - I think this addresses the concern
> and could potentially be useful.
>
> Th
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
Joel Madero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hardware|Other |All
OS|Linux (All)
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38171
Joel Madero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|NOTABUG
23 matches
Mail list logo
