Your message dated Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:42:28 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Done
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; 18 Aug 2001 18:17:02 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 18 13:17:02 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from kuolema.infodrom.north.de [217.89.86.35] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15YAeV-0002d2-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:16:58 -0500
Received: from finlandia.infodrom.north.de (finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE
[217.89.86.34])
by kuolema.infodrom.north.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C6D4D751
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:16:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by finlandia.infodrom.north.de (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 5F437FE54; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:16:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:16:43 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [joey: Archive of debian-openoffice]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Package: listarchives
--
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:45:25 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <joey>
To: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Archive of debian-openoffice
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ICrdrp3pM9DyZLTK"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
--ICrdrp3pM9DyZLTK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Could you add these as archive of debian-openoffice to the web pages?
There was a prelimnary list before the one was created @lists.debian.org
Gruesse,
Joey
--
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."
--ICrdrp3pM9DyZLTK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="debian-openoffice.200108"
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 13 12:44:30 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by finlandia.infodrom.north.de (Postfix, from userid 38)
id F33EC10958; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:44:29 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:43:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Summery [was OpenOffice]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/1
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:44:29 +0200 (CEST)
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> >I'm of the opinion, that we should leave their build system where it is,
> >and create buildscripts for our own. (Preferably using autoconf und
> >helpers, as they tend to make it the right way).
>
> There are autoconf in use, but in a strange way I'd never seen it. Perhaps,
> we could take it and change for our advance. :)
I was of the opinion, that autoconf is only used for some parts of the
compile-bootstrap like building dmake. As I not not think, we should stick
with dmake, we will not need them...
> Did you compile it successfully on your mashine once a time? Do you have an
> overview what things openoffice wants to install?
I currently have some binary-only install to compare the symbols the
libraries are exporting. My Machines are not that good, that I would get
it build in an reasonable time, so I prefer reading the prj/build.lst
files.
> This I think would give us a clue to plan the severel packages.
What I'm currently working on:
idlc -> registry , salhelper , sal
registry -> store , salhelper, sal
store -> sal
salhelper -> sal
sal -> /
the former four libs compile (so there may be some things missing in sal),
but I did only some quit hack, they will need some library-experts and
porters to lock these (exspecially at sal).
idlc seems to have it dependencies filled, but the compiler is a little
bit confused about it. (Some files only compile with warnings switched off
and so on)
I'm currently look if we get this. After we have idlc, we will have to
look, how we get packages with idl-files compiled.
> But this schould be an autoconf-thing and when we fix it, we will fix the
> place place of the files :)
This was an argument against dmake and co. If we use ausoconf, we will get
the places for the files right easily. (The hard part will be to make it
look for it files on the right places).
> >most of them have patches ( ecspecially within the header files ), which
> >may become an major pain in the ass to get this right, ecspecially as
> >I do not see any reason except lazyness, why OO.o should have special
> >version of such common libs.
>
> Are they really different to our common-libs or do they put them with
> OpenOffice to make it able to compile under Windows/Mac?
It seems like the have some specific changes, e.g. changing the
character-type, they are based of. But I do not have investigated much in
this direction yet.
> On OpenOffice.org it was said, that zip and X11-dev will e required, but why
> should I install it, when they will bring it with OpenOffice?
It does not bring X11-dev, but only some extensions. And it does nt rbing
zip but libzip...
> That had to be checked, I think, we can save a lot of time, if these libs
> are similar with our common libs. :)
They are similar! Out problem is, that to use the debian-packages, they
have to be identical in call syntax.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 13 23:39:06 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by finlandia.infodrom.north.de (Postfix, from userid 38)
id 67567109FB; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:39:06 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:33:01 +0200
From: Jan-Hendrik Palic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Build failure at bootsrap...
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Internet: http://www.billgotchy.de
gpg-key: http://www.billgotchy.de/bin/m.asc
Fingerprint: D146 9433 E94B DD1E AB41 398B 41C3 45C1 331F FF66
Key-ID: 331FFF66
OS: Linux Debian Unstable
Private-Debian-Site: http://www.linux-debian.de
Sender: Jan-Hendrik Palic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/2
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:39:06 +0200 (CEST)
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi..=20
first, I have seen, that libpam0g-dev is requiered for building OpenOffice.
=2E/configure said me, that it didn't find pam_appl.h but didn't stop
configuring.
But at one security- file ./bootstrap crashed... :)
Then this:
My build failed this time at a new-point.
I tried to build OpenOffice633 and I got this after several minutes:
g++ -w -nostdinc -c -I. -I. -I../inc -I../../inc -I../../unx/inc
-I../../unxlngi3.pro/inc -I. -I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/sal/inc
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/vos/inc -I.
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/solver/633/unxlngi3.pro/inc
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/solver/633/unxlngi3.pro/inc/external
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/solenv/unxlngi3/inc
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/solenv/inc
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/res -I/usr/include -I/usr/stlport
-I/usr/include/stlport -I/usr/include/stlport
-I/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/solenv/inc/Xp31 -I/include
-I/include/linux -I/include/native_threads/include -I/usr/X11R6/include
-I/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/include -I/usr/include -I.
-I../../res -I. -O2 -pipe -mpentium -fno-for-scope -fpermissive
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=3D2 -fno-exceptions -DLINUX -DUNX -DVCL -DGCC
-DC295 -DINTEL -DUSE_PSPRINT -DTF_UCB -DENABLEUNICODE -DTF_FILTER
-DTF_FILEURL -DCVER=3DC295 -D_USE_NAMESPACE -DGLIBC=3D2 -DX86 -D_PTHREADS
-D_REENTRANT -DNEW_SOLAR -D_USE_NAMESPACE=3D1 -DSTLPORT_VERSION=3D400 -D__D=
MAKE
-DUNIX -DSUPD=3D633 -DBUILD=3D6901 -DSOLAR_PLUGIN -DVCL -DSO3 -DPRODUCT -DN=
DEBUG
-DPRODUCT_FULL -DOPTIMIZE -DEXCEPTIONS_OFF -DGUI -DSOLAR_JAVA -DSRC633
-DBOOTSTRAPPER -DTF_ONE51 -DMULTITHREAD -o ../../unxlngi3.pro/obj/stream.o
/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/tools/source/stream/stream.cxx
/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/tools/source/stream/stream.cxx: In method
=05rrCode SvAsyncLockBytes::ReadAt(long unsigned int, void *, long unsigned
int, ULONG *) const':
/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/tools/source/stream/stream.cxx:358: parse
error before ('
/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/tools/source/stream/stream.cxx: In method
=05rrCode SvAsyncLockBytes::WriteAt(long unsigned int, const void *, long
unsigned int, ULONG *)':
/home/palic/OpenOffice/oo_633_src/tools/source/stream/stream.cxx:375: parse
error before ('
dmake: Error code 1, while making '../../unxlngi3.pro/obj/stream.obj'
---* TG_SLO.MK *---
dmake: Error code 255, while making 'stream'
---* TG_SLO.MK *---
dmake: Error code 255, while making 'source'
---* TG_SLO.MK *---
Does anybody has a hint what that can be?
Thnx
Jan
Perhaps, I should try branch 638....
--=20
One time, you all will be emulated by linux!
----
Jan- Hendrik Palic
Url:"http://www.billgotchy.de";
E-Mail: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL++ P+++ L+++ E W++ N+ o+ K- w---=20
O- M- V- PS++ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5- X+++ R-- tv- b++ DI-- D+++=20
G+++ e+++ h+ r++ z+=20
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7eEeNQcNFwTMf/2YRAZHhAJ41CGMGkLg9CpOZhGSQEW2f3xkEggCfbSme
wFasNe/ee+ojdBcOdxDspTs=
=jw0H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 14 00:39:06 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by finlandia.infodrom.north.de (Postfix, from userid 38)
id 5DCE7109FB; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:39:06 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:24:46 +0200
From: Jan-Hendrik Palic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Summery [was OpenOffice]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M38YqGLZlgb6RLPS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Internet: http://www.billgotchy.de
gpg-key: http://www.billgotchy.de/bin/m.asc
Fingerprint: D146 9433 E94B DD1E AB41 398B 41C3 45C1 331F FF66
Key-ID: 331FFF66
OS: Linux Debian Unstable
Private-Debian-Site: http://www.linux-debian.de
Sender: Jan-Hendrik Palic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/3
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:39:06 +0200 (CEST)
--M38YqGLZlgb6RLPS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi...
>> I'm of the opinion, that we should leave their build system where
>> it is,=20
>> and create buildscripts for our own. (Preferably using autoconf und
>> helpers, as they tend to make it the right way).=20
>>=20
>> There are autoconf in use, but in a strange way I'd never seen it.
>> Perhaps,=20
>> we could take it and change for our advance. :)=20
> =20
>I was of the opinion, that autoconf is only used for some parts of the
>compile-bootstrap like building dmake. As I not not think, we should
>stick with dmake, we will not need them...
hmmm... this would make the work for the buildd easier I think.
I feel well,If we could find a way to use gnu- make!
=20
>> Did you compile it successfully on your mashine once a time? Do you
>> have an overview what things openoffice wants to install?=20
> =20
>I currently have some binary-only install to compare the symbols the
>libraries are exporting. My Machines are not that good, that I would
>get it build in an reasonable time, so I prefer reading the prj/build.lst
>files.
I ported the build on my server, it's a AMD K6 233 with 128MB ram :) But
this mashine in 24h in 7 day's a week online, so I when it takes 5 day,
I shou=F6d take it *g*...
>> This I think would give us a clue to plan the severel packages. =20
>What I'm currently working on:
> =20
>idlc -> registry , salhelper , sal
>registry -> store , salhelper, sal
>store -> sal
>salhelper -> sal
>sal -> /
I got this packages.. :) thnx I will start to package tomorrow!
>> But this schould be an autoconf-thing and when we fix it, we will fix th=
e=20
>> place place of the files :) =20
>This was an argument against dmake and co. If we use ausoconf, we will get
>the places for the files right easily. (The hard part will be to make
>it look for it files on the right places).
The problem is, that we have to to this work every upstream release, which
will ever released.
We aren't allowed to work on the original tar.gz, only in the source-tree
and our changes will go in the diff- file.
What we change mut be doable by the debian/rules script.
>>>most of them have patches ( ecspecially within the header files ), which=
=20
>>>may become an major pain in the ass to get this right, ecspecially as=20
>>>I do not see any reason except lazyness, why OO.o should havespecial=20
>>>version of such common libs. =20
>> Are they really different to our common-libs or do they put them with=20
>> OpenOffice to make it able to compile under Windows/Mac?=20
>It seems like the have some specific changes, e.g. changing the
>character-type, they are based of. But I do not have investigated much in
>this direction yet.
I think diff may help...
>> On OpenOffice.org it was said, that zip and X11-dev will e required,
>> but why should I install it, when they will bring it with OpenOffice? =
=20
>It does not bring X11-dev, but only some extensions. And it does nt rbing
>zip but libzip...
Ok.. thats right. Dows anyone saw a paper on which is described, how they
come to this buildsystem...
>> That had to be checked, I think, we can save a lot of time, if these lib=
s=20
>> are similar with our common libs. :)=20
>They are similar! Out problem is, that to use the debian-packages, they
>have to be identical in call syntax.
Yes.. thats right...
Hmmm perhaps it is better to leave it one package and let it try to build an
one big package to make many smaller debs?
Greetings
Jan
--=20
One time, you all will be emulated by linux!
----
Jan- Hendrik Palic
Url:"http://www.billgotchy.de";
E-Mail: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL++ P+++ L+++ E W++ N+ o+ K- w---=20
O- M- V- PS++ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5- X+++ R-- tv- b++ DI-- D+++=20
G+++ e+++ h+ r++ z+=20
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--M38YqGLZlgb6RLPS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7eFOuQcNFwTMf/2YRAS7LAJ467/o5FW4opGES+Uxogf7Y+4TL0gCeJQ1G
IjXadERgJpEAH0HXY/O+wtc=
=tFH+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--M38YqGLZlgb6RLPS--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 14 10:54:27 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by finlandia.infodrom.north.de (Postfix, from userid 38)
id 22C07FDD3; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:54:27 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:53:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Summery [was OpenOffice]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/4
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:54:27 +0200 (CEST)
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> >> But this schould be an autoconf-thing and when we fix it, we will fix the
> >> place place of the files :)
> >This was an argument against dmake and co. If we use ausoconf, we will get
> >the places for the files right easily. (The hard part will be to make
> >it look for it files on the right places).
>
> The problem is, that we have to to this work every upstream release, which
> will ever released.
That's not that problem. The files used change not so often, only their
content.
> We aren't allowed to work on the original tar.gz, only in the source-tree
> and our changes will go in the diff- file.
>
> What we change mut be doable by the debian/rules script.
There is no upstream .tar.gz. Will will have to make it by ourselves.
(And say in the appopiate file: the .orig is this and that directory from
this cvs at this date, so that it is reproduceable).
If we build-depend on autotools, we will just need to have the
configure.in, Makefile.am's and changes to the files in the diff.
(plus the helper-files like config.guess, but I think they can also be
copied in rules from the autotools/libtool-packages.
> >character-type, they are based of. But I do not have investigated much in
> >this direction yet.
> I think diff may help...
They just unpack the original source and make an patch over it (quite like
in debian). The problem is to examine this patches. Look whoose of those
are bugfixes, so that they might be included to the debian-packages, which
of those are minimal changes, that can be omitted, ad which of those need
major changes in the OO.o code to make them interoperable with unpachted
libraries.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--ICrdrp3pM9DyZLTK--
--DocE+STaALJfprDB--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 109148-done) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Oct 2002 15:42:35 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 27 09:42:35 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pork.gkvk.hr [161.53.211.6] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 185pYg-0003Ko-00; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:42:35 -0600
Received: from joy by pork.gkvk.hr with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 185pYe-0002G0-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:42:32 +0100
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:42:28 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Done
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
From: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0
tests=SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
Oh, it was just a few non-controversial messages. Why didn't you say so
before? :) They're added into the archive now, thank you.
--
Joy
