[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#605120: OpenOffice.org Impress 3.2 problems with Presentationview mode



tag 605120 + moreinfo
thanks

[ would you please wrap your lines at a sane amount? Like
at 72 chars max.? ]

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:03:19PM +0000, Alexis PM wrote:
> tag 605120 + moreinfo

Why? This just says "it needs more info", which you didn't provide.

> > This BTS is *not* for bugs on bpo versions.
> > 
> > Does that also happen with squeeze/sids version?
> >
> 
> If this bug tracking system isn't for backports, which is?

Mailing debian-backports@lists.d.o, as bpo doesn't have a BTS.

> Because the package in Backports is the same as in Squeeze

nope. squeeze is 2 versions ahead ;)

> (but compiled for Lenny), so I guess that the bug pointed also be present at Squeeze

Maybe, yes. My question was more aimed at wanting to know whether it also happens
there because I don't run OOo 3.2.1 anymore... (but LibO, see below)

> (though I do not use testing and therefore I can not confirm it), so I think it is important also to pay attention to bugs in Backports.

didn't say it is not (if you read the ml archive I actually fixed a bug based
on a report from bpo). If I didn't pay attention at all I would not want
more info :)

> > Even if that was confirmed, we're in a hard freeze for
> > squeeze (and thus for OOo 3.2.1, which the backport
> > you use is from). So this won't be fixed anymore, given
> > that it's not a release- critical bug.
> 
> That isn't a critical bug and Squeeze is in hard freeze, but OOo is a important package for desktop users and it is a important bug (OOo Impress is a presentation software and this bug seriously affects usability of the software).

Yeah, but as you say it's not critical, so...

> > It would also be interesting whether LibreOffice 3.3 is
> > affected, too...

And this isn't answered (which the moreinfo was about). If we had a fix there,
we could backport it if the release team would approve it...

Grüße/Regards,

René



Reply to: