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

Re: pre-approval for openoffice.org 1:2.4.1-16 upload seeked (was: Re: Bug#507865: openoffice.org-writer: OOo 2.4.x openinig OOo 3) files doesn't show text (2.x implements standard wrong)


Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Besides the fix for #507865, which now has a proposed patch[1],
> > [1] http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96878#desc17
> Great. Do we need to wait for the review mentioned in #desc19?

I personally would like to wait what the review gives, yes, but if you want
it immediately...

> > +  * debian/shell-lib.sh: remove long obsolete "trap {...}". bashism anyway.
> > +    Thanks lintian.                                                                                                                                       
> I don't think it's a bashism. At least, dash seems to take it just fine

Well, lintian says it is a possible one, and it's grossly obsolete..

> > +  * debian/source.lintian-overrides: override bogus
> > +    missing-build-dependency-for-dh_-command
> You should explain, to me and in the changelog, why is it bogus. I
> couldn't figure it out, and that's what changelogs are for.

Well, it's bogus because we *do* have a cli-common-dev builddep but apparently
lintian does not see it. Maybe because it's arch-specific?

> > And last but not least (and that might be the controversial part):
> > - disable -gcj for ppc, as gij does not work on ppc anyway (#478760) and
> >   thus is just cruft.
> So, I assume that even with disabling this, powerpc users can still use
> the functionality with OpenJDK?

Yes. -gcj always was only here to speed up usage with gcj ad gij has no
JIT compiler. Now hat gij doesn't work at all on ppc with OOo...

OpenJDK on ppc doesn't have HotSpot either, so i's not exactly fast, but
it works :-)

> If a package is broken in an architecture, an alternative implementation
> exists, and all users are going to get by its presence is pain for
> seeing it not work, then I see nothing controversial about the removal.
> Unless I've missed something.

Well, the part I feared was controversial was removals at this time of the
freeze :)


 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Reply to: