On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 15:50:19 -0500,
Jeremy MountainJohnson wrote:
> Is this still a problem for Debian folks? I'm having the same problem
> with Base forms over at Arch Linux (FS#22334) even after 3.3.2 being
> released.
I certainly still see this problem. It seems as if people using the
package
Is this still a problem for Debian folks? I'm having the same problem
with Base forms over at Arch Linux (FS#22334) even after 3.3.2 being
released.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.or
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:35:45 -0700
William Whalley wrote:
> I also see this bug. I installed LibreOffice using Synaptic.
>
> The bug was present in a launchpad PPA in Ubuntu, but that has been
> fixed for weeks (at least the lucid version; the maverick version
> also had it but has apparently b
For what it's worth, the toolbars and form editing work in the RC2 of
3.3.2 from libreoffice.
A few minutes after I installed the .debs from libreoffice, I saw that
RC2 source has been accepted into unstable, so I guess in 48 hours (I'm
an x386 user at present) I'll know if the bug is fixed in
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:53:14AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
> I don't seem to have a libreoffice style installed on squeeze. This
> version is working. It came from the libreoffice web site.
Of course. Those have all of these in one "package", wasting space and
bandwidth. We split them o
On 03/19/2011 10:33 AM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:10:32AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:35:45AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
The bug was present in a launchpad PPA in Ubuntu, but that has been
fixed for weeks (at least the lucid version; t
On 03/19/2011 09:52 AM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 05:34:44PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Thus it appears, despite the version numbering, that the Debian
version has an older version of some part of the package.
Wrong.
To elobarate a bit: we use the "real" LibreOffic
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:10:32AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:35:45AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
> >>The bug was present in a launchpad PPA in Ubuntu, but that has been
> >>fixed for weeks (at least the lucid version; the maverick version
> >
> >In what vers
On 03/19/2011 09:34 AM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:35:45AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
The bug was present in a launchpad PPA in Ubuntu, but that has been
fixed for weeks (at least the lucid version; the maverick version
In what version? With what change? I bet tha
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 05:34:44PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Thus it appears, despite the version numbering, that the Debian
> > version has an older version of some part of the package.
>
> Wrong.
To elobarate a bit: we use the "real" LibreOffice 3.3.1 without much patches.
Ubuntu do
Hi Björn.
please keep 617319 and bwhal...@comcast.net in Cc
--- snip ---
- Forwarded message from William Whalley -
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:35:45 -0700
From: William Whalley
To: 617...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#617319: Toolbars in Base
Reply-To: William Whalley , 617
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:35:45AM -0700, William Whalley wrote:
> The bug was present in a launchpad PPA in Ubuntu, but that has been
> fixed for weeks (at least the lucid version; the maverick version
In what version? With what change? I bet that is just a side-effect on
whatever else chang
I also see this bug. I installed LibreOffice using Synaptic.
The bug was present in a launchpad PPA in Ubuntu, but that has been
fixed for weeks (at least the lucid version; the maverick version also
had it but has apparently been abandoned).
The bug is not present in the tarball downloaded f
13 matches
Mail list logo
