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

Bug#852863: gnome-orca: Orca crash



Package: gnome-orca
Version: 3.22.2-1
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,

Could we apply this patch in Debian package before upstream, as the next release
including this fix will not be in Debian?

Fix mentioned here: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/orca-list/2017-January/msg00026.html (so date of commit is closely)

Thread: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/orca-list/2017-January/msg00022.html
Origin of thread: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/orca-list/2016-November/msg00017.html

Thanks

*** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?
   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
   * What was the outcome of this action?
   * What outcome did you expect instead?

*** End of the template - remove these template lines ***


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
  APT prefers testing-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages gnome-orca depends on:
ii  gir1.2-glib-2.0            1.50.0-1
ii  gir1.2-gtk-3.0             3.22.6-1
ii  gir1.2-pango-1.0           1.40.3-3
ii  gir1.2-wnck-3.0            3.20.1-2
ii  gsettings-desktop-schemas  3.22.0-1
ii  python3-brlapi             5.4-4
ii  python3-cairo              1.10.0+dfsg-5+b1
ii  python3-gi                 3.22.0-2
ii  python3-louis              3.0.0-3
ii  python3-pyatspi            2.20.2+dfsg-2
ii  python3-speechd            0.8.6-1
pn  python3:any                <none>
ii  speech-dispatcher          0.8.6-1

Versions of packages gnome-orca recommends:
ii  libgail-common  2.24.31-1
ii  xbrlapi         5.4-6

gnome-orca suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information


Reply to: