Rene, > Honestly, i doubt this. Upstream often claims that and then it turns > out it's a bug in their version too. > > And, umm. they tried on Windows? Really comparable to Linux, yeah. > And you saw the bug on amd64, whereas I am 100% Sure "es" tried on 32-bit.
Yes, es hasn't been helpful at all. That other fellow tried it on Debian with a few different versions (32/64, upstream, Debian package) and only could reproduce it on Debian upstream. > So... > (I've reopened it, let's see what happens, sometimes you have to > "fight" with Sun to get bugs taken seriously) Yeah, I get that impression. =P Well, by all means if you'd like to lead this fight... I'm getting fed up with them, personally. If I find time this week, I'll save the test case doc in a way that stops breaking images in Debian OOo and then I'll tear apart the two files and try to see how they differ. > > Do you think we can now work together to figure out why that is? > > If you filed it directly after it appeared... I fear digging out in > years until back to 2.x when this was introduced (and if it is > ooo-build specific in which patch[1]) is quite hard until impossible. Well, it's been a rough road over the years with OOo. I use it a *lot* and I've been on Sid for quite a while. I expect bugs to show up and go away over time in lots of packages, and I simply don't have time to report them all. So usually it's just the catastrophic ones I report. This one just won't go away though, so that's when I finally got fed up. I understand your concern though, about trying to figure out where a change came in to play ages ago. If I can determine what all is different with images in the file format between one working and one non-working version, perhaps it will give you more to go on. thanks, tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
