Bug#308051: not so bad
Hi,
Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 20:47:11 +0200
> > From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
> > Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> > > Subject: openoffice.org: Obsolete version even on experimental
> > WTF? What do you want to say with that? 1.1.4 is the latest upstream
> > version and is in experimental (although the langpacks are not
> > installable at the moment)
> > 2.0 is *not* released and 1.9.x is beta-quality stuff which in some
> > aspects is broken. But we are working on debs of it...
> "In some aspect" ... yes, but has more function than 1.1.4 and i have not
> yet found any broken part that worked on 1.1.4 and not in 1.9.>=95.
> On the other part i have a lot of files that 1.1.3 does not open correctly
> and a few ones that not even 1.1.4 open yet.
> I do not say that you must put 1.9 in stable, but putting on experimental,
> possibly with a caveat would be ok.
Worked on. As I said in my last mail. The last one built successfully
was 1.9.92. Something you would call "old", wouldn't you?
> Otherwise create a new package, openoffice.org2 (or openoffice2.org ?)
> keeping in experimental, but regularly updated, so those that want to have
> it in their system, at their risk, can take advantage from a standard
> upgrade path via apt.
Guess what? This is worked on. You have no idea what work that is...
> > Closing this bogus bug.
> not sure is a real "bug" but absolutely not a bogus need !
No. But you reported a "normal" bug with a insulting subject...
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: