https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44135
jwoithe <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #29 from jwoithe <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #28) > NOT [Reproducible] with "LibreOffice 3.6.4.3 rc" German UI/ German Locale > [Build-ID: 2ef5aff] {pull date 2012-11-28} on German WIN7 Home Premium > (64bit). I never saw such an export problem, and all attached PDF look fine > for me with ARX. With respect, closing this as invalid is the height of arrogance. > I decided to close this Bug because we never will get a fix (because the > problem still is absolutely unknown). I completely disagree. During the time since this bug was first reported, a very good picture has been built up regarding the nature of the bug. While the source of the bug is unknown (obviously, since it hasn't been fixed) the basic problem is very much known. > Here we have a horrible bunch of documents, nobody can expect what they are > for and under what circumstances it might be to reproduce what bug ever. This is absolute rubbish. If you care to read through and follow the comments (of where there aren't all that many) you will find that this "horrible bunch of documents" is in fact a rather succinct collection which illustrates the bug. > Currently it seems that we discuss a PDF viewer bug? No. There is clearly a problem with the PDF output from Libreoffice which causes some PDF rasterisers to output an incorrect image. If you care to glance at comments 7, 13, 15, 17 and 20 you will see that there's a 50/50 split between PDF rasterisers which work and those which don't. To save you the hassle: xpdf, CUPS, Okular, STDUViewer and google docs get it wrong. Adobe reader, Evince and Foxit get it right. According to yourself, ARX (whatever that is) can be added to the "gets it right" camp. > I see that the bug still exists for you, so please report a new bug. What we > need is an idiot proof description how to reproduce the problem. I fail to see why we need to open a new report for this. You already have your "idiot proof description" of how to reproduce the problem: see comment 17. > - Write a meaningful Summary describing exactly what the problem is That has been done. The initial description does a pretty good job. Comment 17 also describes it in a fair amount of detail. What more do you want? > - Attach a test kit with sample document (not only screenshot(or refer to an > existing sample document in an other Bug with a link), PDF Export result. You've got that: attached as part of comment 20. > For all attachment write useufl reports! Not simply "colors lost in PDF > export", but "This document created from source.odg with PDF export > settings xxx, yyy, zzz opene with PDFViewer.exe version aaa in xxx mode > with > yyy setting and .... show ....., see screenshot.ong in this testkit.zip" In combination with the comments provided when attached, I don't see that any further descriptions are necessary beyond that which has been provided. > - Attach screenshots with comments showing how your source looks, how your > result looks. Best way is to insert your screenshots > into a DRAW document and to add comments that explain what you want to show > (attachment 68877 [details], attachment 68490 [details]). What part of "the colour renders as greyscale" is unclear? > - Contribute a document related step by step instruction containing every > key press and every mouse click how to reproduce your problem This was pretty much done in as much detail as necessary in comment 20. > – if possible contribute an instruction how to create a sample document > from the scratch Comment 20 again. > - add information > with what PDF settings you exported, ... It was already reported that they were the defaults. > -- concerning your PC (video card, ...) It's got nothing to do with the video card. It's been clearly demonstrated that non-video rasterisers are affected. > -- concerning your OS (Version, Distribution, Language) This was clearly stated too: in my case it was Linux, Slackware distribution version 13.37. Other reporters have included this information too. > -- concerning your LibO version ... This has already been done where relevant. In short, I am astounded that this ticket can be closed as invalid. I have already spent a considerable amount of time testing various versions to confirm the presence of this bug (as have others). I have documented the steps to reproduce the problem, I have provided an ODT file which, when exported to PDF, illustrates the problem (attachment 63837). I have provided the PDF as exported so others can test it in their own PDF viewers (63838). Honestly, what more can we possibly do? Everything that you asked for which is relevant to this problem has been done. I am surprised that this bug has remained unattended for over a year now. However, for me it is a showstopper for reasons explained in the comments and I will continue testing and reporting until we see some positive movement towards solving the problem. Others are finding the same problems. It is creating problems for me when I try to encourage people to use libreoffice and I would dearly like the bug fixed. The bug is real, it's affecting multiple people, and I am sure that none of us have the time to recreate yet another ticket which simply recreates the information that's already been entered in here. I am going to reopen it because it is completely mindblowing that this existing ticket is deemed to be insufficient. If it ends up being closed again citing comment 28 then the take-away message to me is that Libreoffice really doesn't care to resolve bugs like this even when users have taken considerable effort to describe the problem. It will make it very difficult for me to maintain my enthusiasm for the program. This is really a very poor way to treat bug reporters and is a very poor example of what FOSS is all about. I have filed a considerable number of bug reports for various FOSS projects over a period spanning more than a decade and until now I have never encountered such arrogance towards bug reporters and the efforts they have gone to as is communicated in comment 28. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
