Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hash: SHA1

On 11-02-04 11:05 AM, emarkay wrote:

"Reporting Ubuntu bugs ..." via:

As this is a multiplatform program, I can understand that the "main" user of
it (Ubuntu) is to have a separate bug system. Thus, the first question is:
What if a Ubuntu-reported bug also affects Windows version, for example, or
vice versa; what's the link to ensure both (or all relevant OS platform
issues) are addressed?

If an Ubuntu-specific bug is also present in other platforms, it should
be reported "upstream" (at's bugzilla). Reporting
"Ubuntu-only" bugs upstream also helps expose them to other platforms in
order to determine if they are present or not. I also view it as a trail
where others may end up finding your report and confirming / rejecting
it. Some of this is from personal experience, some from online docs and
readings. The current maintainers may have more / better details about
this. I wrote a short note to Björn so he looks at it and comment back.

Second, and most important, LO is "standard issue" now in Ubuntu "Natty",
which is still in Beta at this time. There is no Official Ubuntu LO support
for the current release (Maverick), nor the prior LTS (Long Term Support)
release, Lucid, nor prior active Ubuntu releases. There is, however a "PPA"
that is supported by the Document Foundation; thus while not "blessed" by
the Ubuntu authorities, is tested there by some "official" LO developers,
and is "as good as we'll get" for Lucid and Maverick users who want to
migrate to LO.

The PPA is as official as it gets and currently Canonical has staff
maintaining it (at least 2):

As I understand it this PPA is a staging area which has the same
packages you find in Ubuntu 11.04 (so, "in development") and it's also
built for Maverick and Lucid. It's convenient to use and lets you easily
remove LibO if you decide to do so.

The chances of this getting into the main repository for Maverick are
most probably none - it's only there for convenience and no official
support (in terms of commercial support by Canonical) may be offered for

For Ubuntu 10.04 LTS I believe it's the same situation, but LTS releases
sometimes get some exceptions. Firefox is a notable one where current
releases of FF were rolled back into older stable Ubuntu versions. I
lack the time to gather references but it should be easy to trace back
such exceptions.

I am not sure the PPA was put together initially by TDF but regardless,
you now have Canonical staff looking into it, and Debian has LibO
packages in the experimental repository, which to me means everything is
in place to have an official release on time for Ubuntu 11.04. If you're
planning any migration from OOo to LibO, your best path (IMO) would be
to focus on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and perhaps have trials using the PPA in
10.04 LTS before that. You'll think it's a long shot until you sit and
try it :) It does take some time to make such changes.

Of course in any *production environment* migration considerations, the
only authority to speak on what is supported commercially or not on
Ubuntu by them is Canonical - just call and ask, as you would for any
other product you want to use before doing so. And no, this doesn't stop
anyone else from offering such support and go ahead with migration
before 11.04 is out anyways. But why do that when the release is 2
months away (other than wanting to stay at 10.04 LTS for its life

So, the final question is, do Lucid and Maverick Ubuntu users submit bug
reports to the Ubuntu Launchpad, even though there is no development or
support for those 'Ubuntus', or to the Bugzilla location?

Yes, they should file bugs there. I consider it even better if they take
the time to file bugs upstream too but not everyone knows how to do so
and it may end up being considered noise - plus Ubuntu users normally
are fast on the "problem = bug" path. Forums and Q&A such as Shapado may
help alleviate that.

I hope I also cleared up the "there is no development". So far Debian
packages and the PPA as I have observed them are keeping up tightly to
the current releases so there should be no need to install .debs directly.

Bernhard commented on this elsewhere, and said as he sees it, "The Ubuntu
paragraph on the wiki page describes how to handle Ubuntu *specific* bugs". 
This makes sense, but again doesn't differentiate between the "official" and
the PPA.  

There fact there is a paragraph there is highlighting that difference.
If you installed manually .debs, you shouldn't. If you report an Ubuntu
bug and you installed .deb manually, you'll probably be asked to install
using the PPA to remain consistent.

However it is noted that "Filing a bug report at
as described above is also useful as such "upstream reports" can then be
checked (and possibly tested and fixed) for other LibreOffice versions." He
suggested that Fabián Rodríguez,  who edits the Wiki could confirm and

Very much so - when I wrote that I tried to be concise and not add too
much information. Feel free to modify/improve it as needed.

My personal interest is in Ubuntu and other Debian/Ubuntu-based
distributions (such as Trisquel) so I try to keep close to LibO
developments on these but I'd suggest asking the maintainers directly -
I'll gladly stand corrected on any of this.

I guess the bottom line is if you have Ubuntu and have some time to file
a bug, file it on Launchpad. If you have some more time and can care to
read how to properly do that, please also file it on If
you have no time at all, at least asking on a mailing list, forum or Q&A
site will expose the problem enough that someone else can eventually
file a proper bug.

Specifically, I have found a bug in GIF exporting from Draw, in a PPA LO
using Ubuntu Lucid, and want to submit it. 

Starting a new thread about it will also get more attention, I'd suggest
the "users" list if you decide to do so.



- --
Fabián Rodríguez

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.