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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #268904 > unrolled thread

LibreOffice removed from Debian

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  LibreOffice removed from Debian Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2024-04-17 15:20 +0200
    Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2024-04-17 15:40 +0200
    Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2024-04-17 15:40 +0200
      Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2024-04-17 16:20 +0200
        Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-04-18 04:30 +0200
      Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2024-04-17 16:20 +0200
    Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Sarunas Burdulis <sarunas@math.dartmouth.edu> - 2024-04-17 16:00 +0200
    Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2024-04-18 10:00 +0200
      Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-04-18 10:10 +0200
      Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2024-04-18 10:30 +0200
      Re: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-04-18 11:40 +0200
        Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from  Debian] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-04-18 12:00 +0200
            Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice  removed from Debian] Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-04-18 17:10 +0200
            Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re:  LibreOffice removed from Debian] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-04-18 17:20 +0200
              Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re:  LibreOffice removed from Debian] "rtnetzlof@windstream.net" <rtnetzlof@windstream.net> - 2024-04-18 17:30 +0200
                Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re:  LibreOffice removed from Debian] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-04-18 17:30 +0200
                Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-04-18 17:50 +0200
                  Re: Marking as spam Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2024-04-18 18:20 +0200
                    Re: Marking as spam The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-18 19:00 +0200
            Sorry Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-04-18 17:20 +0200
              Re: Sorry The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-18 17:30 +0200
        Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2024-04-18 12:50 +0200
        On user expectations (Was Re: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed  from Debian) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-04-18 13:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#268904 — LibreOffice removed from Debian

Is there any reason why LibreOffice has been removed from Debian???

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#268906

Hi,

Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Is there any reason why LibreOffice has been removed from Debian???

  https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libreoffice

says

  The dependencies of libuno-cppuhelpergcc3-3=4:24.2.0-1 cannot be
  satisfied in unstable on arm64, s390x, i386, ppc64el, armel, amd64,
  and armhf
  [...]
  Depends on packages which need a new maintainer
  [...]
  This package has been requested to be removed. [...]
  Please see bug number #1069123 for more information.

This bug looks somewhat like a misunderstanding between the maintainer
and the Debian FTP Master.
The maintainer declares a lot of packages to be "cruft"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harvard_Cruft_Hall.png)
referring to various arches, but not to amd64.
The Masters seem to react by marking the source package "libreoffice"
for removal. (It is in the maintainer's cruft list, indeed.)


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

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

#268907

On 2024-04-17 14:26:12 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:12:39 +0200
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello Vincent,
> 
> >Is there any reason why LibreOffice has been removed from Debian???
> 
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libreoffice
> 
> Has all the info you need, and more.  Expect it to be removed from
> testing, too.

Indeed:

"This package has been requested to be removed. This means that, when
this request gets processed by an ftp-master, this package will no
longer be in unstable, and will automatically be removed from testing
too afterwards. If for some reason you want keep this package in
unstable, please discuss so in the bug. Please see bug number #1069123
for more information."

> This is not permanent.

If this is not permanent, why have all the bugs been closed?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

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

#268911

On 2024-04-17 16:13:30 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I've sent a message to bug 1069123 (which requested the removal).
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069123#20 and
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069123#25 say
> that the request was correct, but the bugs shouldn't have been
> closed. They have now been reopened.

Actually, if I understand correctly, LibreOffice will really be
removed on some architectures (armhf ppc64el s390x mips64el riscv64).
Fortunately, I am not concerned by this removal (only by the fact
that my bug reports were closed, but this has now been fixed).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

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

#268923

> Actually, if I understand correctly, LibreOffice will really be
> removed on some architectures (armhf ppc64el s390x mips64el riscv64).

🙁


        Stefan

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

#268912

On 2024-04-17 14:59:18 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:35:57 +0200
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello Vincent,
> 
> >If this is not permanent, why have all the bugs been closed?
> 
> That I have no answer for.

I've sent a message to bug 1069123 (which requested the removal).

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069123#20 and
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069123#25 say
that the request was correct, but the bugs shouldn't have been
closed. They have now been reopened.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

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

#268909

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

On 4/17/24 09:12, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Is there any reason why LibreOffice has been removed from Debian???

Seems still to be included in unstable and experimental:

$ apt policy libreoffice
libreoffice:
   Installed: 4:24.2.2-3+b1
   Candidate: 4:24.2.2-3+b1
   Version table:
  *** 4:24.2.2-3+b1 500
         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
      4:24.2.2~rc2-2 1
           1 https://deb.debian.org/debian experimental/main amd64 Packages


-- 
Sarunas Burdulis
Dartmouth Mathematics
math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas

· https://useplaintext.email ·

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

#268926

Le 17/04/2024 à 15:26, Brad Rogers a écrit :
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:12:39 +0200
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
>
> Hello Vincent,
>
>> Is there any reason why LibreOffice has been removed from Debian???
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libreoffice
>
> Has all the info you need, and more.  Expect it to be removed from
> testing, too.
>
> This is not permanent.
>
What scares me is seeing part of 18 ongoing transition, and 4 "coming 
soon transitions" with "please do not upload if it is not related to the 
transition".

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

#268927

Am 18.04.2024 schrieb Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org>:

> What scares me is seeing part of 18 ongoing transition, and 4 "coming 
> soon transitions" with "please do not upload if it is not related to
> the transition".

That is Debian unstable. There will be changes that break things and it
is intended to find and fix them.

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

#268928

On 18 Apr 2024 09:55 +0200, from erwan@rail.eu.org (Erwan David):
>> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libreoffice
> 
> What scares me is seeing part of 18 ongoing transition, and 4 "coming soon
> transitions" with "please do not upload if it is not related to the
> transition".

Why does that scare you?

Those entries are related to testing; that is, it seems to me, Trixie.

We're over a year away from a likely release of Trixie, or
correspondingly half way in between the Bookworm and Trixie releases.
(Note: I have no special knowledge of the release cycle planning for
Trixie. This is based on historical evidence and an assumption that
something approximating the release cycle for the last several
releases will apply also to Trixie, which would put a Trixie release
in mid-2025.)

Large-scale changes in Testing and Unstable _especially_ at this point
in the release cycle are to be expected. Sometimes those changes will
by necessity block other changes until everything is sorted out in
terms of versions, dependencies and packaging.

If you want stability, run Stable (and maybe Backports). If you're
running Testing or Unstable (let alone with Experimental on top of
that), then you should _expect_ there to be occasional breakage or
large-scale changes that can block upgrades until it is all sorted
out by the package maintainers, and which may sometimes require local
intervention as well.

To be fair, this did apparently cause some side effects of bugs being
closed incorrectly; but my understanding from the sidelines of this
thread is that that was corrected quickly once brought to attention.

-- 
Michael Kjörling                     🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

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

#268931 — Re: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian

I only hope, it will not happen the same fate like usermin and webmin happened 
to: It was once removed from the repoi with th ereason "spagehetti code, bad 
code" and then no one ever took a look again to it, although many, many years 
of coding passed by. 

And webmin and usermin are still developed! 

I suppose, it is much easier, to remove a package, than to fix it. Once 
removed, it will soon be forgotten.

This is not mourning, please note, just things, I am just reflect my 
watchings. 

And for libreoffice I suppose, it is planned, to change from 7.6 to 24.4, 
which will be a major jump.

Don't anger, if I do not find the correct Englisg idioms!

Best 

Hans 

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

#268932 — Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

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

Hi, Hans

is it your mail setup adding that *****SPAM***** decoration to the
subject?

Just curious...

cheers
-- 
t

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

#268946 — Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 11:53:38 CEST schrieb tomas@tuxteam.de:
Hi Tomas,

this is by debian servers, I talked about this for a while. Because the debian 
servers mark some things in the header, megamailservers.eu mark them as spam 
and add ****SPAM**** to the headline.

As I can not fix it and debian admins will also not do, and I just answered to 
the debian mail, you see the spam mark in the headline.

I am no motre thinking of it, because everything was said in another theread 
in this list.

For myself I made a rule in spamassassin, that mails from debian are 
whitelisted, although they are marked as spam and although they are appearing 
with ****SPA**** in the headline - as I know, they are NO spam!

Hope, this explains it.

Best 

Hans 
> Hi, Hans
> 
> is it your mail setup adding that *****SPAM***** decoration to the
> subject?
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> cheers

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

#268947 — Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

Hans (12024-04-18):
> As I can not fix it

You can manually remove “*****SPAM*****” from the mail when you reply.

You could even automate it on your end.

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

#268949 — Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message leaves his control.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicolas George" <george@nsup.org>
To: "debian-user" <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:13:44 AM
Subject: Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

Hans (12024-04-18):
> As I can not fix it

You can manually remove “*****SPAM*****” from the mail when you reply.

You could even automate it on your end.

-- 
  Nicolas George
-- 
Bob Netzlof a/k/a Sweet Old Bob

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

#268951 — Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

rtnetzlof@windstream.net (12024-04-18):
> As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message leaves his control.

I very much doubt it, we would see “*****SPAM***** Re:” rather than
“Re: *****SPAM*****”.

And his recent “Sorry” mail was not tagged.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00294.html

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

#268952 — Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 17:21:41 CEST schrieb rtnetzlof@windstream.net:
To make clear: The first time I replied, I forgot to remove the spam tag.

But the "Sorry" mail I did send without the spam tag. However, I get it WITH 
the spamtag, as all mails get the DCIM=false tag in the header (created by the 
debian servers) and megamailservers.eu add the ****SPAM**** tag. 

Those, who receive their mails on another way, are not affected, but I am.

Thus, I get some mails from the debian list with ****SPAM**** tag and some 
without, depending how I received it. 

I can not fix this (as already described in another thread on this list here), 
so I had to create a whitelist rule in my spamrules.

However, yes, you can expect from me, that I remove the ****SPAM**** tag, when 
I reply of mails. 

If I reply, I am not sure, if the spam tag is recreated, whilst the DCIM=false 
tag might be kept in the reply mails (did not examine this).

Of course, I will watch to remove the spam tag when replying in the future.

Promised!

Best

Hans 

> As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message
> leaves his control.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicolas George" <george@nsup.org>
> To: "debian-user" <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:13:44 AM
> Subject: Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re:
> LibreOffice removed from Debian]
> Hans (12024-04-18):
> > As I can not fix it
> 
> You can manually remove “*****SPAM*****” from the mail when you reply.
> 
> You could even automate it on your end.

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

#268954 — Re: Marking as spam

On 18/04/2024 12:43, Hans wrote:
> But the "Sorry" mail I did send without the spam tag. However, I get it WITH
> the spamtag, as all mails get the DCIM=false tag in the header (created by the
> debian servers) and megamailservers.eu add the ****SPAM**** tag.

Or you could use a less shitty mail service, because failed DKIM (I 
assume that's what you mean by DCIM=false) does not mean that an email 
is a spam.

Conversely, I see a lot of spams that have a valid DKIM signature.

Moreover, I don't think the Debian list servers validate DKIM. It's 
probably your host that is doing so.

And finally, your own mails fail DKIM, so for a mail server that seems 
to give so much importance to DKIM, they could at least set it up right.

-- 
Nothing can be done in one trip.
		-- Snider

Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
eduardo@kalinowski.com.br

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

#268956 — Re: Marking as spam

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

On 2024-04-18 at 11:53, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:

> On 18/04/2024 12:43, Hans wrote:
> 
>> But the "Sorry" mail I did send without the spam tag. However, I
>> get it WITH the spamtag, as all mails get the DCIM=false tag in the
>> header (created by the debian servers) and megamailservers.eu add
>> the ****SPAM**** tag.
> 
> Or you could use a less shitty mail service, because failed DKIM (I 
> assume that's what you mean by DCIM=false) does not mean that an
> email is a spam.

Good luck convincing a provider which has decided to do this of that.

> Conversely, I see a lot of spams that have a valid DKIM signature.
> 
> Moreover, I don't think the Debian list servers validate DKIM. It's 
> probably your host that is doing so.
> 
> And finally, your own mails fail DKIM, so for a mail server that
> seems to give so much importance to DKIM, they could at least set it
> up right.

My understanding, based I think in part on past conversations, was/is
that changes which are often made to messages automatically by
mailing-list software as part of forwarding them through to the list
members have the side effect of causing DKIM checks to fail (at least
with some DKIM-validating configurations, I'm not sure about all).

If that is correct, then not only would that likely be the reason for
Hans' mail provider seeing DKIM validation failing for all mails from
debian-user, it would also mean that mails from Hans would probably fail
DKIM validation for those who receive them through debian-user - without
meaning that his mail provider is necessarily doing DKIM wrong, at least
on the sending end.

A way to check that might be to have Hans send a mail to someone both
via the list and not, or (if that gets filtered out by some relevant
software as being a duplicate) send two mails, one via the list and the
other not. If the one via the list has the header flag for failed DKIM,
and the other doesn't, that would seem to narrow down the possibilities.

(I am not volunteering for this.)


On the other hand, if my understanding is *not* correct, then none of
that applies.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#268948 — Sorry

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 17:08:53 CEST schrieb Hans:
Sorry, the spam tag appears because of DCIM in the header.

Not my fault.

Best

Hans
> Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 11:53:38 CEST schrieb tomas@tuxteam.de:
> Hi Tomas,
> 
> this is by debian servers, I talked about this for a while. Because the
> debian servers mark some things in the header, megamailservers.eu mark them
> as spam and add ****SPAM**** to the headline.
> 
> As I can not fix it and debian admins will also not do, and I just answered
> to the debian mail, you see the spam mark in the headline.
> 
> I am no motre thinking of it, because everything was said in another theread
> in this list.
> 
> For myself I made a rule in spamassassin, that mails from debian are
> whitelisted, although they are marked as spam and although they are
> appearing with ****SPA**** in the headline - as I know, they are NO spam!
> 
> Hope, this explains it.
> 
> Best
> 
> Hans
> 
> > Hi, Hans
> > 
> > is it your mail setup adding that *****SPAM***** decoration to the
> > subject?
> > 
> > Just curious...
> > 
> > cheers

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web