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

Bug#225381: marked as done (Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif fonts after work-around)



Your message dated Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:05:24 +0100
with message-id <1073649924.1601.56.camel@scooby.cmt>
and subject line Bug#225381: Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif fonts after work-around
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Dec 2003 12:36:14 +0000
>From bjj@gmx.net Mon Dec 29 06:36:13 2003
Return-path: <bjj@gmx.net>
Received: from mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20] 
	by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1Aavib-0000jr-00; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:37:53 -0600
Received: (qmail 1677 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Dec 2003 11:37:51 -0000
Received: from p508E157E.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO gmx.net) (80.142.21.126)
  by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 12:37:51 +0100
X-Authenticated: #160654
Message-ID: <3FF012E9.4000006@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:41:29 +0100
From: "B. Janssen" <bjj@gmx.net>
Reply-To: bjj@gmx.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221 Thunderbird/0.4
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif fonts after work-around
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------000100000504070104040909"
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 
	2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_28 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_28
X-Spam-Level: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000100000504070104040909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Package: openoffice.org
Version: 1.1.0-3

Bugs occured in Debian SID.

BUG ONE - Configurations fails

dpkg --status openoffice.org
Package: openoffice.org
Status: install ok half-configured
Priority: optional
Section: editors
Installed-Size: 31769
Maintainer: Debian OpenOffice Team <debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org>
Version: 1.1.0-3
Replaces: openoffice.org1.1, openoffice-de-en, openoffice-de, 
openoffice.org-bin
  (<= 1.0.3-2), openoffice.org-gnome
Provides: openoffice.org1.1, openoffice.org-thesaurus-en, 
openoffice.org-thesaur
us, openoffice-de-en, openoffice-de
Depends: openoffice.org-debian-files (>> 1.1.0-2), openoffice.org-bin 
(>= 1.1.0-
2), openoffice.org-l10n-en (>> 1.1.0) | openoffice.org-l10n-1.1.0.final, 
diction
aries-common (>= 0.10) | openoffice.org-updatedicts
Recommends: x-ttcidfont-conf, openoffice.org-mimelnk
Suggests: myspell-dictionary, openoffice.org-help, menu, ooqstart-gnome 
| oooqs-
kde, unixodbc, cupsys-bsd, libsane, ttf-bitstream-vera, 
openoffice.org-crashrep,
  prelink, openoffice.org-hyphenation, openoffice.org-thesaurus
Conflicts: openoffice.org1.1, openoffice, openoffice.org-l10n, 
openoffice.org-l1
0n-1.1.0, openoffice-de-en, openoffice-de, oooqs-kde (<= 1.0rc3-2), 
openoffice.o
rg-spellcheck-de-de (<= 20020701-6), openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-ch (<= 
2002070
1-6), openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-at (<= 20020701-6), 
openoffice.org-spellcheck
-es (<= 0.0.2002.01.20-2), openoffice.org-spellcheck-fr-fr (<= 20030727-2)
Conffiles:
  /etc/openoffice/sofficerc f978973d59694de44ea4e39dcb281b3d
  /etc/openoffice/psprint.conf 940791bb3fd3451a505b3c056595b9de
Description: high-quality office productivity suite
  OpenOffice.org is a full-featured office productivity suite that provides
  a near drop-in replacement for Microsoft(R) Office.

[cut]


Attached you will find a error report generated by apt. It basically 
says that it can't configure Open Office because the 
update-openoffice-dicts program is missing and then skips the whole 
setup. Installing the www.openoffice.org version first and then 
installing the Debian version over it offers a work-around.

BUG TWO - No italic in serif fonts

This, unfortunatly, creates another bug, which i also report here. If 
you wish to receive two seperate reports, send an e-mail, please.

At least if you use the above mentioned work-around, Open Office looses 
the ability to display serif fonts (like Nimbus Roman, URW Bookman - i 
know about the Vera Serif lack of an italic font, which, btw, makes them 
almost totally useless) in italic/oblique. Sans Serif fonts work without 
a flaw. In Abiword everything works like expected. I am stumped.

I use the stock Debian SID packages of Gnome 2.4.1, XFree86 4.2.1 and 
Freetype 2.1.7. The only self-compiled package is Ghostscript in version 
7.07, which is necessary to use my Brother GDI Laserprinter.

Kind regards,
Björn

--------------000100000504070104040909
Content-Type: text/plain;
 name="OOo_error.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="OOo_error.txt"

Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
openoffice.org is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
7 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 0B of additional disk space will be used.
Setting up myspell-en-us (20030813-1) ...
Setting up openoffice.org (1.1.0-3) ...
localepurge: checking system for new locale ...
localepurge: processing locale files ...
localepurge: processing man pages ...

--------------000100000504070104040909--

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 225381-close) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jan 2004 13:55:20 +0000
>From halls@debian.org Fri Jan 09 07:55:19 2004
Return-path: <halls@debian.org>
Received: from (rover24.cmt) [217.110.227.22] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1AevO8-0007TV-00; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:05:16 -0600
Received: from scooby.cmt (scooby [192.168.60.70])
	by rover24.cmt (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CC367C7A19; Fri,  9 Jan 2004 13:05:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: by scooby.cmt (Postfix, from userid 1050)
	id C6D333C4AD; Fri,  9 Jan 2004 13:05:24 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Bug#225381: Open Office Configuration fails / no italic serif
	fonts after work-around
From: Chris Halls <halls@debian.org>
To: 225381-close@bugs.debian.org, 225402-close@bugs.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <1072706733.4250.404.camel@localhost>
References: <3FF012E9.4000006@gmx.net> <1072706733.4250.404.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1073649924.1601.56.camel@scooby.cmt>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:05:24 +0100
Delivered-To: 225381-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 
	2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
X-Spam-Level: 

Submitter wrote in PM:

> > I don't actually see any mention of update-openoffice-dicts in your
> > attached report.  Please will you send the complete ouput of the
> > problem.
> > 
> 
> I can't. I solved the issue by force overwriting dictionaries-common. 
> Somehow the original update-openoffice-dict has been damaged. I don't 
> know why yet, but i rule out, that the openoffice packages are at
> fault.


> > Why is this different from the existing bug reports?
> > 
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214588
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224670
> > 
> 
> At first glance it isn't!

Closing since there is no extra information that isn't in the duplicates
already.



Reply to: