(re-sending my mail to the BTS, sorry) > Patrik Fimml <patrik@fimml.at> writes: > > libgoffice's packaging is currently buggy, not changing the package name > > with SONAME. Please rebuild abiword as an intermediate fix until the > > libgoffice packaging problem is resolved. (see #570010) Actually, I meant to refer to #570351. On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 07:42:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > binNMUs were scheduled for 2.8.1-2, but all failed to build due to > #569373. > 2.8.2-1 has been uploaded after libgoffice had been changed, thus is > already built against the new goffice version and a binNMU wouldn't > change anything. #572043 has been reported against 2.8.1-2 from testing, > which is known to be affected. Why do you think a binNMU of 2.8.2-1 > would solve this issue? Sounds like there was a race condition between the new goffice and the new abiword. I know #572043 has been reported against 2.8.1-2, yet my checking revealed that 2.8.2-1 has the same problem (at least here on amd64, md5sum: 322bb68e575771e49353081263150e5d). Regards, Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature