Sync abiword 2.9.1-0.1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)

Bug #881386 reported by Stephan Ruegamer on 2011-10-25
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
abiword (Ubuntu)

Bug Description

Please sync abiword 2.9.1-0.1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)

Explanation of the Ubuntu delta and why it can be dropped:

All patches and issues are resolved upstream

  * Build-depend on libxcb-util0-dev instead of libxcb-render-util0-dev.
  * Build-depend on libxcb-util0-dev instead of libxcb-render-util0-dev.
  * debian/patches:
    - fix-ftbfs-gcc-46.diff: correctly pass linker options. lp: #765948
    - series: add this patch.
  * No-change rebuild to pick up multiarch libs.
  * No-change rebuild to pick up multiarch libs.

Changelog entries since current precise version 2.8.6-0.3ubuntu2:

abiword (2.9.1-0.1) unstable; urgency=low

  [ Hector Oron ]
  * New upstream release.
  * Fix plugin license incompatibility introduced in NMU
    abiword/2.8.6-0.1 (Closes: #602687).
  * Merge diff for NMU version 2.8.6-0.3 (Closes: #613294).
  * Build depend on libgsf-1-dev, librasqal3-dev, librdf0-dev.
  * Fix bogus build depend on libwpd8-dev to libwpd-dev.
  * Fix build with hardening flags (format-security).
  * Refresh fix_no_undefined patch.

  [ Patrik Fimml ]
  * New upstream release (closes: #577733)
  * Do not ship libtool .la file (Policy 10.2)
  * Remove build-dependency on libaspell-dev (closes: #570647)
  * Switch to 3.0 (quilt) source package format

 -- Hector Oron <email address hidden> Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:00:54 +0000

abiword (2.8.6-0.4) unstable; urgency=low

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Stop shipping .la files. Closes: #33314.
  * Pass -Wl,--no-undefined instead of --no-undefined. Closes: #628267.

 -- Regis Boudin <email address hidden> Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:50:05 +0100

Stephan Ruegamer (sadig) on 2011-10-25
Changed in abiword (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
status: New → Confirmed
Micah Gersten (micahg) wrote :

After speaking with mr_pouit and gilir on IRC in #ubuntu-motu, we (Xubuntu and Lubuntu devs) all agree that having a dev release of Abiword for the LTS is not a good idea. Is there some pressing need for this?

Changed in abiword (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Incomplete
Stephan Ruegamer (sadig) wrote :

Hi Micah,

yes, I did the merge of abiword 2.8.x today, and we have a lot of format-security errors.
2.9.x is fixing all those compiler bugs.

I tried to compile the latest 2.8.x release, but with our toolchain in precise, it's a disaster.

I can try to fix all format-security errors in one patch, but then I need people to test it, so for me it makes no difference.

Please decide :)


Stephan Ruegamer (sadig) wrote :

And eventually as an addon:

2.8.6 was released 16 months ago, and 2.9.x will be the next 3.0.x stable release.
So it would be easier to to maintenance work on a younger branch then on the older one.

Please take this into account in your decision.



Micah Gersten (micahg) wrote :

Subscribed gilir here so he would see the responses and comment.
I think we should rather fix the format security issues or even better pull the patch from upstream that does so. It states clearly on the Abiword website that the 2.9.1 version should not be used in a production environment. Unless we have a guarantee of a 3.0.0 release before Feature Freeze (Feb 16), I think we should stick with 2.8.6, there was some mention of a 2.8.7 on the Abiword mailing list, but I'm not following that closely. If the 3.0.0 ends up happening in time, we can always upgrade later.

Micah Gersten (micahg) wrote :

Also, format-security was just reverted in the latest dpkg upload.

Stephan Ruegamer (sadig) wrote :

Hey Micah,

I patched 2.8.6 to fix all format security errors.
As Colin explained, cdbs is special with this, and cdbs packages need to fix those errors directly, see the log from yesterday.

I uploaded the merge yesterday, so you can test it.



Changed in abiword (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Invalid
Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

It looks like abiword 2.9.1 was uploaded to precise in December. Are we going to try to override that and ship the last 2.8.* release?

Micah Gersten (micahg) wrote :

It was discussed on IRC and we'll revert if the need arises due to stability issues.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers