Open Office upgrade??

[Reinhold Rumberger]

On Sunday 14 February 2010, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 13 February 2010, Reinhold Rumberger wrote:
> >On Sunday 14 February 2010, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> On Saturday 13 February 2010, Reinhold Rumberger wrote:
> >> >On Saturday 13 February 2010, Ric Moore wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 18:44 +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
> >> >> > On 13 Feb 2010, at 5:56pm, Ric Moore wrote:
> >> >> > > I'm having a couple of problems with OpenOffice. I
> >> >> > > install just what is available from the repos. I had my
> >> >> > > share of grief, when I used Fedora, with too new beta
> >> >> > > software so I'm a tad gun shy to install packages not
> >> >> > > "official". Yet, when I try to enter a bug report, the
> >> >> > > site advises me to upgrade before it'll accept my bug
> >> >> > > report. <sighs> I have Open Office 3.01 installed
> >> >> > > (1:3.01-9) and am running Jaunty.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > OO 3.01 is quite far behind the current release, 3.2,
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ergo the problem. Should this be updated in the repo??
> >> >> 
> >> >> > so I'm not that surprised that the first response is to
> >> >> > upgrade to 3.2 and try again ... Of course jaunty won't
> >> >> > get an update
> >> >> 
> >> >> Why is that?? Karmic destroys my sound system, which works
> >> >> just fine, for now.
> >> >
> >> >The point is that wildly adding new software versions to the
> >> >repo will result in bit rot and eventually render a system
> >> >unusable. This way, it will always stay at least close to the
> >> >quality it was when it was shipped - be that high or low.
> >> 
> >> I'll argue that point.  The initial release might have its
> >> warts, I think going from 10 folks running it last week, to
> >> 10,000+ a week after a new one is released _is_ gonna find new
> >> bugs those 10 guys didn't.
> >
> >You're confusing introducing new versions with fixing bugs -
> >there are quite a lot of bugs getting fixed especially in the
> >first few weeks without integrating a newer upstream version.
> >There will, obviously, be a few exceptions where integrating a
> >new upstream version is absolutely necessary - but those are
> >very rare.
> >
> >> But its seem to me that 90 days or so on, those bugs ought to
> >> be fixed by the simple expedient of doing regular updates, and
> >> the process should continue getting better as the release
> >> ages.
> >
> >There's going to be a point where the bug doesn't affect enough
> >people to bother fixing in a given release. It'll usually be
> >fixed in the next release, if it's fixed at all.
> >Packagers' time's valuable, too, y'know. They'll tend to focus on
> >high-priority bugs that don't have a viable workaround...
> >
> ><snipping ramblings about pulse audio>
> >
> >a) No thread hijacking, please!!
> >b) PA is quite easy to remove - just use your favourite package
> >
> >   manager.
> >
> >c) The PPA link was for OOo, nothing at all to do with PA.
> >
> >  --Reinhold
> 
> The point I, Ric, and many others have been trying to make, is the
> biggest single problem linux has right now, and its not just on
> kubuntu, is a lack of audio once PA gets into the mix.

Yeah, I noticed that. But that's not what this thread is about. If 
you feel you need to rant about PA and the inability of the 
developers/packagers to fix this problem, *please* open another 
thread. This one is about getting OOo to a version where a bugreport 
will be accepted by launchpad.

> That is my point.  And its meant as a general rant about
> attitudes. Apparently the developers do seem to be able to make
> it work, or they get their cubicle noises from the air
> conditioning, whatever.  They would appear to be oblivious to the
> problems audio has developed since PA came on the scene, because
> the fixes if there are any, aren't being propagated. Before PA,
> we could fix us up a custom modprobe.conf and it all works.  PA
> apparently ignores that even if it does exist, 'it knows better
> than we do' I guess.

Yeah, I know. PA sucks. Get rid of it... (It's what I did! ;-) )

> Your statement about the packagers time being valuable is rather a
> slap in the face to us.  We put our pants on one leg at a time,
> exactly as they do.

So, when they have to make a choice between fixing critical kernel 
bugs and bugs that affect a large percentage of the userbase, they 
should choose whatever affects you? Seriously, there aren't enough 
packagers/developers to handle everything, so something less 
important (like sound and about three quarters of my bugreports) will 
be ignored/delayed. If that doesn't suit you, go deal with the 
problem yourself or hire more packagers/developers.
This isn't about nobody wanting to fix your problems, this is about 
understaffing and prioritising, a.k.a the "real world".

  --Reinhold
PS: I'm not trying to be "in your face". This is just me being 
realistic and somewhat annoyed with your rather childish attitude.