Dave Jones wrote: > Markus Schönhaber wrote on 02/04/07 02:27: > > ATM we have the situation where the current stable version of OpenOffice > > (2.1.0-r1) won't compile (at least on a lot of machines) unless an ~arch > > version of STLport is installed: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172860 > > Looking at comments 34 and 37 > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172860#c34 > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172860#c37 > > it seems to me there is a conflict in policies but I don't see how this > > situation should be / will be handled. > > What is there to do? > > It seems that we will have to be patient. The various bug reports have > been marked resolved or duplicate, but as yet there no sign of an > updated STLport in portage - except for the ~arch STLport-5.1.2. > > Bug #172680 indicates that this ~arch version of STLport resolves the > OpenOffice compilation problem. However, I am very reluctant to use an > ~arch ebuild to compile such a massive (but apparently delicate) ebuild > as OpenOffice.
I'm already running OOo 2.1.0-r1 (having package-keyworded STLport 5.1.2) and, AFAICT, it runs fine. OTOH your reluctance is understandable. But what makes the situation even more delicate as the OOo build seems to be, is that OOo 2.1 contains some security fixes. > Oh well, patience is a virtue. Or so they say. I was just asking out of curiosity - the bug doesn't hurt me personally. Since although the situation atm is obviously not the way it's meant to be, it's a thing that can happen and propably will happen again eventually. I was simply curious how this will be handled now and (maybe differently) in the future. But since further comments on the bug seem to imply that there is a lot of discussion on what is to be done, and since I don't have the groundbreaking idea that makes all problems disappear, you're propably right: we will have to be patient... Regards mks -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
