Hello,

When two users on the same machine open the same file from a samba share, the second gets a notice about the file to be openned in read-only mode.
If the first user saves modification while the second user have the file openned, the first user gets an error saying the file does not exists anymore.
And then, the file is actually deleted once the second user closes the file.

Hi,

2 grave           makes the package in question unusable by most or all users, or causes data loss, or
                  introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of users who use the package.
[...]
4 important       a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely
                  unusable to everyone.

Ok, one might argue this as data loss, but I don't think this is grave enough to
warrant grave, important looks more suited. But anyways.

Why two users on the same machine, same file? I could understand the
scenario of same file on samba share, different computers... Or do
you use some graphical "remote desktop" thingy allowing access of more
people to one comuter?

LO has lockinbg problems like this. This is nothing new. In fact, quick googling
just gave me
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115747#c28
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

etc.

It's probably not related (and would be a bug in the newer LO)
but why are you mixing 6.1.5 and 6.3.0 packages?

Regards,

Rene

forwarded 935182 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127057
thanks

Hi,
filed by you or someone in your organization?

Just for data: What happens with a ("real"/complete) 6.3.0 (as is in
buster-backports, of which you have parts installed)?

Regards,

Rene

retitle 935182 Concurrent file open on the same host results file deletion
thanks

Hi,

OK, the bug I pointed to in my other message says so and that it works
if you do it from PC A and B...

That would (IMHO) make it even more "important" since "normal" access
from A or B to file X works, just RDP and same host A doesn't...

In any case, this bug is not a distribution to fix, this is something
for upstream.

Regards,

Rene

Hi,

Actually, we were almost certain that the problem will be forwarded to the upstream, so we openned the bug on Document Fondation too.

We also tryed with the backports version, the problem is there too.
--
Gilles MOREL <contact@gilles-morel.fr>
Ce message ne s'autodétruira pas dans cinq secondes. Cinq, quatre, trois, deux, un…

----- Message original ----------------
Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
à Gilles MOREL <contact@gilles-morel.fr>, 935182@bugs.debian.org
copie à control@bugs.debian.org
le mardi 20 août 2019 à 18:53:06 +0200
avec Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Re: Bug#935182: Concurrent file open results file deletion by the read-only instance
--------------------------------------------------
forwarded 935182 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127057
thanks

Hi,
filed by you or someone in your organization?

Just for data: What happens with a ("real"/complete) 6.3.0 (as is in
buster-backports, of which you have parts installed)?

Regards,

Rene

Hi,

For severity, I read severity's description and the first that seemed to fit was grave, since I got data loss.
For multiple user on the same host, the host is actually a RDP server, served by xrdp.
For the version, that's because I tryed to use the backports version of LO, but the problem is there too.
--
Gilles MOREL <contact@gilles-morel.fr>
Le premier tirage aléatoire est [51, 31, 38, 6, 16] et le second est [9, 9, 9, 9, 9]. Quel tirage est le plus aléatoire ?

----- Message original ----------------
Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
à Gilles MOREL <contact@gilles-morel.fr>, 935182@bugs.debian.org
le mardi 20 août 2019 à 18:30:06 +0200
avec Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Re: Bug#935182: Concurrent file open results file deletion by the read-only instance
--------------------------------------------------
Hi,

2 grave           makes the package in question unusable by most or all users, or causes data loss, or
                  introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of users who use the package.
[...]
4 important       a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely
                  unusable to everyone.

Ok, one might argue this as data loss, but I don't think this is grave enough to
warrant grave, important looks more suited. But anyways.

Why two users on the same machine, same file? I could understand the
scenario of same file on samba share, different computers... Or do
you use some graphical "remote desktop" thingy allowing access of more
people to one comuter?

LO has lockinbg problems like this. This is nothing new. In fact, quick googling
just gave me
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115747#c28
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

etc.

It's probably not related (and would be a bug in the newer LO)
but why are you mixing 6.1.5 and 6.3.0 packages?

Regards,

Rene

found 935182 1:6.3.0-1
thanks

Would have been nice to tell the upstream URL then in the report
already since this then can be marked as such directly :)

OK, marking as such.

Regards,

Rene

Dear submitter,

as the package libreoffice has just been removed from the Debian archive
experimental we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/1069123

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using https://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Humanitarian Grant of 1.5M for you. Reply for claims

Madame, Monsieur,
Malgré nos précédents contrôles comptables, nous constatons à ce jour que le règlement du loyer du mois de septembre demeure en attente.
Nous vous saurions gré de bien vouloir nous transmettre sans délai le justificatif de paiement ou la quittance correspondante, afin de procéder à la régularisation de votre situation.À défaut de retour rapide de votre part, nous serons contraints d'engager les démarches nécessaires au recouvrement de cette somme.
Nous vous rappelons par ailleurs que nos coordonnées bancaires ont récemment été modifiées.Ces nouvelles références doivent impérativement être utilisées pour tout paiement à venir, notamment celui du loyer du mois d'octobre.Tout règlement effectué sur l’ancien RIB ne pourra être validé.
Si vous ne disposez pas encore de ce RIB actualisé, nous vous invitons à en faire la demande dans les meilleurs délais.
📩 Contact – Service Comptabilité : comptabilite_gestion_locative@outlook.com
Nous vous remercions de votre diligence et restons à votre entière disposition pour tout complément d’information.
Dans l’attente de votre régularisation,Veuillez agréer, Madame, Monsieur, l’expression de nos salutations distinguées.
Le Service Comptabilité – Gestion Locative