[re-sending to proper Bug#, as suggested by [EMAIL PROTECTED]; somehow it was addressed to #484453] ----- Forwarded message from -----
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:29:29 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#484454: openoffice.org-filter-binfilter: hangs at ~98+% CPU trying to open .sdw docs from StarOffice 5.2 On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:29:07AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > again. BPO is not in the scope of this BTS and the BTS does not know hm. ok. Then I suggest the BTS automatically rejects, with proper msg to reporter, reports for version it doesn't know of and/or isn't interested in. > Try it in sid/lenny please before reporting a bug.. that'd mean I'd shut up till I eventually upgrade a machine to Lenny, which would happen rather long after Lenny->stable. Sorry, BPO is the only source of prepackaged .deb for Etch tracked by packages.debian.org afaik. Above the stable 2.0.4 that is. Testing and gathering infos for a bug report takes some effort, if you're not going to consider bug.rep. against BPO, pls state so clearly - possibly in the README.Debian - so that we save everybody's time (though I still need to find a workaroud). But perhaps that should go (also) on front pages on both pkg search and BTS as a general statement? > > this is part of Bug#471348 saga, only that I'm filing against the - hoeply - > > proper sub-pkg. > > In which you didn't submit any info with which the author can debug it. > And in this bug you didn't either. wrong, check your mailbox: !> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:01:01 +0100 !> To: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !> Subject: Re: Bug#471348: openoffice.org: Segmentation fault trying to open a .sdc !> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' in which I attached one of those problematic files. Assuming such msg didn't vanished midway, of course. > > Like for the .sdc case there, OOo2.4.0-4~bpo40+1 hangs while trying to open > > a .sdw made in SO5.2, taking away the CPU. answering to your other msg: SEGV was the best/worst case: best since OOo2 died before taking the system down, worst since - well - it segv. That was for OOo2.3.1, OOo2.4.0 worked on those files, though (Debian's) OOo2 takes much more CPU to do the job than OOo1.1.5 *and* official OOo's OOo2.4.0 (which works just fine, so far). I feel I'm seeing effects of the some bug, in SO import filters. > > And like in the other case, OOo1.1.5 does the job without a glitch. > > No one even remotely cares about OOo 1.1.5 anymore. guess so; though I'm not reporting a bug against OOo1x, the fact that OOo1 get it right may give some hint. > > This is becoming a serious issue, as the doc base (here) is largely .sd* and > > Where have you been the last years? doing something else than keeping on upgrade & break working systems. > Then you should give out documents to get the authors debug it. Not just > filing bugs which rot because no one can test. (like #471348). see above. I do what+when I can - I don't own those docs. > anyway that it just happens for some documents, not all. correct (likely); looks like an heisenbug. Likely Debian-specific though, as OOo2 from OOo (build OOH680_m12_native_packed-1_it.9286) seems to work just fine (so far), on Woody, Sarge, Etch. thanks -- paolo ----- End forwarded message ----- -- paolo GPG/PGP id:0x3A47DE45 - B5F9 AAA0 44BD 2B63 81E0 971F C6C0 0B87 3A47 DE45 - 9/11: the outrageous deception and ongoing coverup: http://911review.org - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]