Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0 users beware!

--- Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2006-06-23 06:38:32 -0700, Anthony Simonelli > wrote: > > I'm sure everyone probably knows this but the > recent upgrade of > > libfreetype6 from 2.1.7-2.4 to 2.1.7-2.5 breaks > OpenOffice.org 2.0 > > i

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0 users beware!

On 2006-06-23 06:38:32 -0700, Anthony Simonelli wrote: > I'm sure everyone probably knows this but the recent upgrade of > libfreetype6 from 2.1.7-2.4 to 2.1.7-2.5 breaks OpenOffice.org 2.0 > if you've installed the downloaded version from OpenOffice.org. I > installed Op

OpenOffice.org 2.0 users beware!

I'm sure everyone probably knows this but the recent upgrade of libfreetype6 from 2.1.7-2.4 to 2.1.7-2.5 breaks OpenOffice.org 2.0 if you've installed the downloaded version from OpenOffice.org. I installed OpenOffice.org 2.0 using 'alien' to convert the RPMs and have bee

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0 installed?

Quoting Bruno Buys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, /opt is where the files were written to, > indeed. But since dpkg was involved, the managing > system got in the middle. In the end, I removed all > the stuff, since apt-get can't do anything else > besides complain, 'till you remove'em. Thanks, I'

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On 2005-10-24 20:42:54 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 02:35:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > I see. So, isn't it possible to build a backport statically linked > > with these libraries? > > It is, but you would have to modify the source package and rebuild it > yo

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On 2005-10-24 18:57:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Except that it is now linked against the libraries from gcc-4.0, g++-4.0 > and gcj-4.0. Those libraries are not compatible the libraries currently > in Sarge. I see. So, isn't it possible to build a backport statically linked with these li

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 02:35:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-10-24 18:57:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > Except that it is now linked against the libraries from gcc-4.0, g++-4.0 > > and gcj-4.0. Those libraries are not compatible the libraries currently > > in Sarge. > > I s

OpenOffice.org 2.0 installed?

I installed OpenOffice.org 2.0 from one of those brazilian mirrors in http://www.openoffice.org.br/saite/, where someone already alienized them. OOo does run correctly, and I'd like to keep it on my sarge. Now, apt-get keeps trying to remove it. How do I tell apt-get to forget these &

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On 2005-10-24 06:51:27 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2005-10-23 13:36:20 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > It will not work in Sarge as the new OpenOffice packages depend on newer > > > versions of kaffe and on gcc-4.

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:52:36AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-10-24 06:51:27 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2005-10-23 13:36:20 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > > It will not work in Sarge as the new

re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

Alternatively, you could just download your favorite non-free JDK (as long as it is Sun's) and OOo from their home page and install it yourself from the upstream RPMs. -Roberto I did this, and it works quite well. But it took up a huge amount of space on my harddrive. -Mark I doubt th

re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

Alternatively, you could just download your favorite non-free JDK (as long as it is Sun's) and OOo from their home page and install it yourself from the upstream RPMs. -Roberto I did this, and it works quite well. But it took up a huge amount of space on my harddrive. -Mark -- To UNSUBSC

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 12:02:07PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote: > > As a matter of interest why was the kaffe JVM chosen over GIJ? It seems > a little strange to have it built with GCJ but then run on kaffe. I know > that the configure scripts had problems with GIJ as it does not have a file >

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Monday 24 October 2005 11:51, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2005-10-23 13:36:20 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > It will not work in Sarge as the new OpenOffice packages depend on > > > newer versions of kaffe and on gcc

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-10-23 13:36:20 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > It will not work in Sarge as the new OpenOffice packages depend on newer > > versions of kaffe and on gcc-4.0, which is only available in Etch/Sid. > > Why such a dependen

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On 2005-10-23 13:36:20 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > It will not work in Sarge as the new OpenOffice packages depend on newer > versions of kaffe and on gcc-4.0, which is only available in Etch/Sid. Why such a dependency? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Joseph Haig wrote: --- Rick Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edit your sources.list file (usually in /etc/apt). Add the following > line: > > deb http://people.debian.org/~rene/openoffice.org/2.x ./ > > Once you've done that, run apt-

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Joseph Haig wrote: > --- Rick Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Edit your sources.list file (usually in /etc/apt). Add the following > > line: > > > > deb http://people.debian.org/~rene/openoffice.org/2.x ./ > > > > Once you've done that, run a

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

--- Rick Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edit your sources.list file (usually in /etc/apt). Add the following > line: > > deb http://people.debian.org/~rene/openoffice.org/2.x ./ > > Once you've done that, run apt-get update followed by > apt-get install openoffice.org > Will this work

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

Rick Friedman wrote: On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 11:14 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote: OK, I'll be the first to admit that the problem is with me. Where are these packages as far as apt is concerned? I tried apt-get update; apt-get install openoffice.org; It reports that I already have the latest

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 11:14 -0500, Michael Satterwhite wrote: > OK, I'll be the first to admit that the problem is with me. Where are > these packages as far as apt is concerned? > > I tried apt-get update; apt-get install openoffice.org; It reports that > I already have the latest version. > > I

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

Ron Johnson wrote: | On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 01:03 -0400, j j wrote: | |>Where are the .debs? Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to |>convert rpms to deb. | | | http://openoffice.debian.net/ | 2005-10-22: 2.0 uploaded to unstable | It's done! openoffice.org 2.0.0-1 was just uploaded

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 01:26 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > http://openoffice.debian.net/ > 2005-10-22: 2.0 uploaded to unstable > It's done! openoffice.org 2.0.0-1 was just uploaded with target > unstable. Because it has NEW binary packages again (and was > renamed back to openoffice.

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 01:03 -0400, j j wrote: > Where are the .debs? Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to > convert rpms to deb. http://openoffice.debian.net/ 2005-10-22: 2.0 uploaded to unstable It's done! openoffice.org 2.0.0-1 was just uploaded with target unstable. Becau

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 23:30 +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 01:31:03PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > > Is openoffice 2 considered to be a different package from openofice 1.14? > > > Or is it a newer version of the same package? > > > > > > -- hendrik > > > > It is quite diff

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 01:31:03PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > Is openoffice 2 considered to be a different package from openofice 1.14? > > Or is it a newer version of the same package? > > > > -- hendrik > > It is quite different.OOo 2.0 is version 2.0, which is the latest. 1.1.4 > has b

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

then I'll be doing the same. > > > alien -i *.rpm > > > > > > Is there a big difference from the last RC? > > > > I used alien -i *.rpm on the OpenOffice.org 2.0 RPMs. It worked fine. > > The RPMs installed OpenOffice.org 2.0 into /opt/openoffice.org2.0.

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

s there a big difference from the last RC? > > I used alien -i *.rpm on the OpenOffice.org 2.0 RPMs. It worked fine. > The RPMs installed OpenOffice.org 2.0 into /opt/openoffice.org2.0. So, > if you have SID's openoffice 1.14 installed (as I do), you can still > keep it.

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:42 -0400, j j wrote: > I thought I overlooked something when I discovered RPMS. If it worked > soomthly, then I'll be doing the same. > alien -i *.rpm > > Is there a big difference from the last RC? I used alien -i *.rpm on the OpenOffice.org 2.0

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

surprised to find RPMs, ratherthan the install script / program with 1.1.4, in the 2.0.0 archive. Ithought I might have mis-clicked and downloaded a rpm rather than ageneric archive, but on the website [1], I found thatOpenOffice.org 2.0 supports native installation mechanisms. For example, .

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

found that OpenOffice.org 2.0 supports native installation mechanisms. For example, .MSI and .CAB files are provided on Microsoft Windows; RPM files are available for Linux. Well, as we know, RPM is not "native", but alien to some flavours of Linux... ;-) Best regards, Jan [1] http

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

Am Freitag, den 21.10.2005, 01:03 -0400 schrieb j j: > Where are the .debs? Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to > convert rpms to deb. Try/Test the pre packages deb http://people.debian.org/~rene/openoffice.org/2.x/ ./ on your sid box and report problems to the debian OOo mailinglist

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

Ok :)On 10/21/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: j j wrote:> Where are the .debs? Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to convert> rpms to deb.>Patience my young apprentice :)--To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

j j wrote: > Where are the .debs? Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to convert > rpms to deb. > Patience my young apprentice :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OpenOffice.org 2.0

I am not sure if that is 2.0.  i think you're pointing to 1.9.xxxOn 10/21/05, Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:On Friday 21 October 2005 01:03 am, you wrote:> Where are the .debs? Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to convert > rpms to deb.$apt-cache search openoffice.org...openoffice.org2

OpenOffice.org 2.0

Where are the .debs?  Oo developers encouraged one to use alien to convert rpms to deb.