I'd like to propose to mark openoffice 2.0.0 stable on the x86 arch. It now has been in the tree for a month, all the initial problems seem to have been fixed, no significant new problems have been reported in the last few weeks. Especially in relation to the 1.1.x-series, which was a lot more likely to break, this is a BIG improvement. The package has seen a lot of testing, also from a lot of stable x86-testers (at least if counting the comments on bugzilla and the forums), so generally it should be fine. All necessary deps are marked x86 already, with one exception: java-config-1.2.11-r1, which is the same as the stable 1.2.11 with only a small fix for OOo. Hope I didn't miss anything and that you agree with me ;) Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 113106 ***
Hmm, why is this a duplicate? openoffice and openoffice-bin are two different packages.
(In reply to comment #2) > Hmm, why is this a duplicate? openoffice and openoffice-bin are two different > packages. Yes they are. Most likely a mistake.
Just adding openoffice-alias, so that Paul reads that too ;)
Sorry that was a mistake in marking the two as dups
Working well for me here usability wise. comment 14 of bug 113106 is the only applicable thing. But thats not necissarily an evil. I like OOo 2.0; but 7 hour compile makes me cry :-( --- Portage 2.0.53_rc7 (default-linux/x86/2005.1, gcc-3.3.6, glibc-2.3.5-r2, 2.6.14-ck5-stable i686) ================================================================= System uname: 2.6.14-ck5-stable i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+ Gentoo Base System version 1.6.13 ccache version 2.3 [enabled] dev-lang/python: 2.3.5-r2, 2.4.2 sys-apps/sandbox: 1.2.12 sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.59-r6 sys-devel/automake: 1.4_p6, 1.5, 1.6.3, 1.7.9-r1, 1.8.5-r3, 1.9.6-r1 sys-devel/binutils: 2.15.92.0.2-r10 sys-devel/libtool: 1.5.20 virtual/os-headers: 2.6.11-r2 ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" AUTOCLEAN="yes" CBUILD="i686-pc-linux-gnu" CFLAGS="-O2 -march=athlon-xp -pipe" CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3.4/env /usr/kde/3.4/share/config /usr/kde/3.4/shutdown /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/lib/X11/xkb /usr/share/config /var/qmail/control" CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=athlon-xp -pipe" DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles" FEATURES="autoconfig ccache confcache distlocks sandbox" GENTOO_MIRRORS="http://gentoo.mirrors.pair.com http://gentoo.mirrors.tds.net" LANG="en_US.UTF-8" PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages" PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp" PORTDIR="/usr/portage" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="/usr/local/portage" SYNC="rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage" USE="x86 X alsa apache2 apm arts audiofile avi berkdb bitmap-fonts bzip2 cdb crypt curl emboss encode expat fam flac foomaticdb fortran gd gdbm gif gpm gstreamer gtk2 idn imlib ipv6 java jpeg kde lcms libg++ libwww logitech-mouse mad mhash mikmod mng motif mp3 mpeg mysql ncurses nls ogg oggvorbis opengl oss pam pcre pdflib perl png python qt quicktime readline sdl spell ssl tcpd tiff truetype truetype-fonts type1-fonts udev usb vorbis xine xml2 xmms xv zlib userland_GNU kernel_linux elibc_glibc" Unset: ASFLAGS, CTARGET, LC_ALL, LDFLAGS, LINGUAS, MAKEOPTS
Ok, so everyone agrees that OOo 2.0 should go stable, so what is the next step now? We still need java-config-1.2.11-r1 stable, so how do we take care of that?
File a bug for java-config and assign it to the maintainers, with the arches CC'd
Why ins't ppc CC:ed to this bug?
Stupid bugzilla, it disregards depend modifications I made unless I remember to presh refresh in a tab I already have open. Any way if you like to stable on ppc too, add the depend on bug 113806 again. I already took care of java-config for x86.
So as java-config-1.2.11-r1 is now stable on x86, is it ok, if I mark OOo 2.0.0 stable, too?
Fine by me... =]
Ok, I've marked this stable now, thanks everyone! Closing this.
