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

Bug#962185: inkscape: Document properties dialog is too small and not resizable



On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 12:06 +0200, Michel Le Bihan wrote:
> Package: inkscape
> Version: 1.0-1
> Severity: normal
> Tags: upstream
> 
> The issue is already being tracked upstream:
> https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/1343
> 
> 
> 
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: bullseye/sid
>   APT prefers testing
>   APT policy: (700, 'testing'), (650, 'unstable'), (600,
> 'experimental'), (500, 'stable')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
> Foreign Architectures: i386
> 
> Kernel: Linux 5.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8),
> LANGUAGE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
> LSM: AppArmor: enabled
> 
> Versions of packages inkscape depends on:
> ii  libatkmm-1.6-1v5       2.28.0-2
> ii  libc6                  2.30-8
> ii  libcairo2              1.16.0-4
> ii  libcairomm-1.0-1v5     1.12.2-4
> ii  libcdr-0.1-1           0.1.6-1
> ii  libdbus-glib-1-2       0.110-5
> ii  libdouble-conversion3  3.1.5-5
> ii  libfontconfig1         2.13.1-4.2
> ii  libfreetype6           2.10.1-2
> ii  libgc1c2               1:7.6.4-0.4
> ii  libgcc-s1              10.1.0-3
> ii  libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0     2.40.0+dfsg-4
> ii  libgdl-3-5             3.34.0-1
> ii  libglib2.0-0           2.64.3-1
> ii  libglibmm-2.4-1v5      2.64.2-1
> ii  libgomp1               10.1.0-3
> ii  libgsl25               2.6+dfsg-2
> ii  libgtk-3-0             3.24.20-1
> ii  libgtkmm-3.0-1v5       3.24.2-1
> ii  libgtkspell3-3-0       3.0.10-1
> ii  libharfbuzz0b          2.6.4-1
> ii  libjpeg62-turbo        1:1.5.2-2+b1
> ii  liblcms2-2             2.9-4+b1
> ii  libmagick++-6.q16-8    8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1+b2
> ii  libpango-1.0-0         1.44.7-4
> ii  libpangocairo-1.0-0    1.44.7-4
> ii  libpangoft2-1.0-0      1.44.7-4
> ii  libpangomm-1.4-1v5     2.42.1-1
> ii  libpng16-16            1.6.37-2
> ii  libpoppler-glib8       0.71.0-6
> ii  libpoppler82           0.71.0-6
> ii  libpotrace0            1.16-2
> ii  librevenge-0.0-0       0.0.4-6+b1
> ii  libsigc++-2.0-0v5      2.10.2-1
> ii  libsoup2.4-1           2.70.0-1
> ii  libstdc++6             10.1.0-3
> ii  libvisio-0.1-1         0.1.7-1
> ii  libwpg-0.3-3           0.3.3-1
> ii  libx11-6               2:1.6.9-2+b1
> ii  libxml2                2.9.10+dfsg-5
> ii  libxslt1.1             1.1.34-4
> ii  python3                3.8.2-3
> ii  zlib1g                 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2
> 
> Versions of packages inkscape recommends:
> ii  aspell                           0.60.8-1
> ii  fig2dev                          1:3.2.7b-4
> ii  imagemagick                      8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1+b2
> ii  imagemagick-6.q16 [imagemagick]  8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1+b2
> ii  libimage-magick-perl             8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1
> ii  libwmf-bin                       0.2.8.4-17
> ii  python3-lxml                     4.5.0-1.1
> ii  python3-numpy                    1:1.17.4-5
> ii  python3-scour                    0.37-4
> 
> Versions of packages inkscape suggests:
> pn  dia                   <none>
> pn  inkscape-tutorials    <none>
> pn  libsvg-perl           <none>
> pn  libxml-xql-perl       <none>
> ii  pstoedit              3.75-1
> pn  python3-uniconvertor  <none>
> ii  ruby                  1:2.7+1
> 
> -- no debconf information
> 

Hi,

This issue has was fixed in commit:

https://gitlab.com/speleo3/inkscape/-/commit/9569830407de9ae014bc5bc174d3ea9cc7b4c858

As this issue relates to usability. Can we include in current debian
inkscape packages that have 1.0-x please?

I have tested this fix and all seems well. It already appears in the
1.0.x upstream tree and would be able to be dropped with the release of
1.0.1, but no schedule for that is yet available.

Regards

Phil

-- 

*** Playing the game for the games sake. ***

WWW: https://kathenas.org

Twitter: @kathenasorg

IRC: kathenas

GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: