Emmanuel Fleury wrote: > Hi Mickael, > > Mickael Marchand wrote: > >>wow, what a surprise ! >> >>I've built the packages using your patch, and openoffice compile and >>_works_ just fine (I initially just wanted to see what was broken ;) > > > I find your lack of faith disturbing, Lord Marchand. ;-) well, the only thing I heard about having a native OOo on 64 bits was : "it' s just a dream, stop thinking about it" for months ;) so I am really amazed, it seems you did a really good job :)
> In fact, I have been struggling with these bugs since one month and I > fixed some of them first on the 2.0.0 (which was a bit pointless) but > since I'm working on the 2.0.1, I really had hope to finish. I did not know someone was working hard on this problem actually ;) well, I haven't seen any bugs yet so it looks like a really good job, I did not even expected it to fire up when I started the build :) (hence my surprise :o) (well, I am not a big OOo user, just basic usage ;) > > The patch attached to my previous mail is in the pipe to be included in > the future 2.0.1 Debian package (I've discussed with the Debian > maintainers of the OpenOffice packages). So, when the 2.0.1 will hit the > road it won't be necessary to apply the patch again. > > Another thing ! > > I would suggest to report bugs directly to Openoffice.org, NOT to the > Debian maintainers. They might be NUMEROUS ones and the Debian > maintainers are already over-loaded, so it would help to report it > directly to the source. > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/pre_submission.html Yes, that makes sense. > > >>I am currently uploading the packages I've built to a faster server >>(ftp://ftp-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/linux/oo64/) so other people can test >>and confirm I am not going crazy or doing some mistake :) > > > Great ! Actually, I don't have a lot of time to maintain such > repository. Thanks a lot. well, I can rebuild and host these packages without trouble as long as it's needed. It's no problem for me. thanks again :) Cheers, Mik > > >>you will need to install gcj-4.1 from experimental to be able to get >>these packages (or maybe it was gcc-4.1, I have both ...) > > > Ok. No problem. > > >>thanks Emmanuel for the tip ;) > > > You're more than welcome. ;-) > > >>btw, I did not got your error Emmanuel, it just built fine, maybe you >>had an incomplete build laying around before ? > > > Hmmmm, it must be me... I'm such a stupid git sometimes. :-/ > > Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
