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

Bug#664706: libreoffice-report-builder: report-builder exception and rollback



Package: libreoffice-report-builder
Version: 1:1.2.1+Lib03.4.6-2
Followup-For: Bug #664706

Dear Maintainer,

I keep three machines up to date with unstable. The two that
are amd64 architecture have no problem, but the one that is
i686 architecture does show this problem.

Unfortunately the i686 machine is the one that *needs* to
have report-builder installed. Even more unfortunately, both
unstable *and* testing show this problem. So I've
uninstalled libreoffice and instead installed the
openoffice.org packages from stable.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages libreoffice-report-builder depends on:
pn  gcj-4.6-jre [java5-runtime]            4.6.3-1
pn  gcj-jre [java5-runtime]                4:4.6.2-4
pn  libbase-java                           <none>
pn  libcommons-logging-java                1.1.1-8
pn  libflute-java                          <none>
pn  libfonts-java                          <none>
pn  libformula-java                        <none>
pn  liblayout-java                         <none>
pn  libloader-java                         <none>
pn  libpentaho-reporting-flow-engine-java  <none>
pn  libreoffice-core                       <none>
pn  libreoffice-java-common                <none>
pn  libreoffice-report-builder-bin         <none>
pn  librepository-java                     <none>
pn  libsac-java                            1.3-3
pn  libserializer-java                     <none>
pn  libxml-java                            <none>

libreoffice-report-builder recommends no packages.

libreoffice-report-builder suggests no packages.



Reply to: