Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 172062

Summary: RFE: update libgsf to 1.13.2
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Michael Wise <micwise>
Component: libgsfAssignee: Caolan McNamara <caolanm>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: hdegoede
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: 1.13.3-1 Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-11-01 09:16:12 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Michael Wise 2005-10-30 11:39:42 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051008 Fedora/1.5-0.5.0.beta2 Firefox/1.4.1

Description of problem:
Would it be possible to update libgsf.  I am trying to comile gnucash2. It needs libgoffice and libgoffice-0.1 needs at least libgsf-1.13.1

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:

Additional info:

Comment 1 Caolan McNamara 2005-11-01 09:16:12 UTC
Well the 1.13 series is technically "unstable", and I don't want to get into
supporting an unstable version. 1.12-3 was only released in september. I'm
reluctant to move to 1.13.

Comment 2 Hans de Goede 2005-11-25 13:55:58 UTC
I would like to add a me too or +1 to this ticket, I would like to update
gnumeric in extras to 1.6 which needs libgoffice-0.1.x which needs libgsf >=
1.13.2 . Please reconcider.

Comment 3 Hans de Goede 2005-11-25 13:58:33 UTC
As an alternative I might create a libgsf13 package, whot is you opinion on that?

Comment 4 Caolan McNamara 2005-11-25 14:08:57 UTC
I'm not in favour of putting in a 1.13 under-development package until it's 1.14
as I don't need the pain of api changes right now for libwpd->OOo and whatever
else is lurking in the grass. A libgsf13 package sounds good

Comment 5 Hans de Goede 2005-11-26 22:41:37 UTC
In the meantime I've made a special libgsf113 package for extras which can be
installed next to the core libgsf without any problems. See bug 174266 for the
extras review. I've also created a goffice package for extras, see Bug 174267
for the review.

Comment 6 Caolan McNamara 2005-12-02 20:15:18 UTC
hmm, one of my more gung-ho co-workers has upgraded it anyway :-)

Comment 7 Hans de Goede 2005-12-05 12:57:35 UTC

Could you add an Obsoletes libgsf113(-devel) to it so that it get rids of
libgsf113, this doesn't conflict but ldd on something linked to libgsf might get
the extra versions as that adds /usr/lib(64)/libgsf-1.13/lib to the ldpath.

I'll update goffice and gnumeric to build against the new in core package (not
set a special PKGCONFIG path and change requires).



Comment 8 Caolan McNamara 2005-12-05 13:06:21 UTC
ok, done.