Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1022111 > unrolled thread

Bug#968438: Should this really be RC?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2020-08-19 18:10 +0200
    Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Pino Toscano <pino@debian.org> - 2020-08-19 18:30 +0200
      Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 16:50 +0200
        Bug#968438: Should this really be RC? Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2020-08-21 06:10 +0200

#1022111 — Bug#968438: Should this really be RC?

On 2020-08-19 23:42, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I have updated okular and, while the bug is important I fail to see it
> as an RC bug. Most of okular's functionality is still there and
> working perfectly.
> 
> I am not downgrading the bug severity because Pino did a first review
> and I might be missing something else.


Since it was a new release just uploaded to unstable, I marked it RC to 
halt it from migrating to testing, at least until you had a chance to 
review the problem.  It's only the one piece of functionality that's 
broken, but it's broken bad. (And for me, it's the functionality that I 
like to use okular for).

I'm happy for Pino to make the judgement to downgrade severity if you 
and he thinks the new version is fit to go into testing.

Drew

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1022115

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

In data mercoledì 19 agosto 2020 17:54:47 CEST, Drew Parsons ha scritto:
> On 2020-08-19 23:42, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> > I have updated okular and, while the bug is important I fail to see it
> > as an RC bug. Most of okular's functionality is still there and
> > working perfectly.
> > 
> > I am not downgrading the bug severity because Pino did a first review
> > and I might be missing something else.
> 
> 
> Since it was a new release just uploaded to unstable, I marked it RC to 
> halt it from migrating to testing, at least until you had a chance to 
> review the problem.  It's only the one piece of functionality that's 
> broken, but it's broken bad. (And for me, it's the functionality that I 
> like to use okular for).
> 
> I'm happy for Pino to make the judgement to downgrade severity if you 
> and he thinks the new version is fit to go into testing.

I understand the concern related to the bug introduced by the new
version. I found an upstream bug that seems the same issue:
  https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425354
feel free to join it, and provide your feedback. Also, note that your
point #1 is sort of invalid, as the design of the annotation toolbar
was changed upstream.

OTOH, all the other functionalities such as
- opening and displaying any kind of document
- dealing with attachments
- dealing with forms
- printing
- all the various options/settings
- showing the existing annotations
- even modifying the properties of existing annotations
- removing existing annotations
work fine, TTBOMK. So yes, we have a bug that prevents creating new
annotations, however it is just one of the possible functionalities.
Because of this...

> I think, and for that reason I've
> marked this bug as Severity grave, "makes the package in question
> mostly unusable"

... I disagree with this statement: the package in question is _not_
mostly unusable.

-- 
Pino Toscano

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1022199

severity 968438 normal
thanks

The problem might also come from previous configuration, both a fellow
co maintainer and I tried to create annotations and they worked. Yes,
they are now presented as a toolbar, but they are there. And moreover
the buttons do what they are intended to do.

I would recommend backing up your current okular configuration and
removing it, then opening okular again and trying. If that makes a
change you might want to consider attaching your configuration to the
upstream bug.

All in all this is at most a normal bug which might be triggered by
previous configs (I'm still speculating), but definitely a normal bug.

Drew: please try the above, you might be able to solve the issue for
other people too.

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1022268

On 2020-08-20 22:44, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> severity 968438 normal
> thanks
> 
> The problem might also come from previous configuration, both a fellow
> co maintainer and I tried to create annotations and they worked. Yes,
> they are now presented as a toolbar, but they are there. And moreover
> the buttons do what they are intended to do.
...
> All in all this is at most a normal bug which might be triggered by
> previous configs (I'm still speculating), but definitely a normal bug.
> 
> Drew: please try the above, you might be able to solve the issue for
> other people too.


Inspecting config files, there's .config/okularrc but there's also 
.config/okularpartrc

I find I can reproduce (and eliminate) the bug by removing the second 
config file .config/okularpartrc
Removing it, the functions operate as labelled. Reinstating it, the 
functions break as reported.

So removing  .config/okularpartrc  works around the bug.

Drew

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web