Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6F9C94DA for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:33:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27756 invoked by uid 500); 10 Apr 2012 02:33:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 27567 invoked by uid 500); 10 Apr 2012 02:33:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 27553 invoked by uid 99); 10 Apr 2012 02:33:45 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:33:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username arielch, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:33:44 +0000 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 23:33:43 -0300 From: Ariel Constenla-Haile To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Linux builds Message-ID: <20120410023343.GA11053@localhost> References: <4F816821.2030903@gmx.net> <4F816AAE.2080700@googlemail.com> <20120408233105.GA2885@localhost> <4F82B706.9030509@googlemail.com> <20120409231246.GA29666@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lily, On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:20:50AM +0800, xia zhao wrote: > Ariel, >=20 > Do you means user have to remove the old packages manually?=20 I don't mean anything, I'm just describing the situation: that's the way I has been working since OOo 3.0.0 > It isn't reasonable for end users. Yes. Quite strange nobody seemed to complained about it (I haven't found previous bug reports about it). > Though keeping the old package is default behavior, I couldn't understand > the reason.=20 Me neither. May be this was the design behind the 3 layer OOo, I've no idea. > If just want to keeping the previous configuration etc, is it > possible to split and erase other packages? >=20 > No matter which reason, back to the upgrade problem, we need find one way > to resolve the couldn't launch or crash problem. Looking at the backtrace, the might have been introduced by changes on the extension handling, but I'm just guessing (I don't have a build with debugging symbols right now). Regards --=20 Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPg5wHAAoJEMjP1bm45QNWMjUQAKvvN9QzKgq+3OFNM+SDSq9+ Rn9zzCckJdRYfIolt5leR84n0yGdi53b69J0st5extihZZX44AIYedaJR8FNNNEr /EVoYk6wXF5ara2ZVDrTjO+D3HQedbJ4ijmMfAci5upi2mpXqsH1t1iZiAooIshs SORAGq1NJIrFSF8baESiZ6OnWilzAmDTlOAMPWm49yeQVYozhKqeIe4PJADpm+GI STKhL3O2f4jYtU0qQlC+UZXMgALh3GoR5/Je6syq/44PPIaKAP7rIR0NQY4veITf zlrzowwYGKUm+l1d/vl274Fz3//7nEK65cmg9TYLhO7on7uK0FwDLuEOLi4K8kV5 Mg9yN6WCNYSeOjnVxoO6GNQxPc1BaJohCj9z0Qsk4nP2fGTRITNP2mFTcLklNuFN 1r2yg+olMdADF1aFd1NgZSaIPky+X8EES8TAvBp2qXYUPRtPnQpGJWCLCFP9CeRp StfgfCGzI30fOru6mlIXZujJtwVisFnsvAH0vHrnXiJeUm79mywPGsJpReWNyn2U CCZcDf/0yDFXnooL3oTHPplZPM+0YaATs9I9mWyF+v1mtB9ze2DeNS+G7OlnCyRH cXF0XxgM9Z2LCBLAeFXqC5sHYQG6uHZOqXrc3KLVEgmX4p23flsByJ+9nT2f/SB1 9CeYZ1YRQAqah5uFeg7d =jK93 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--