I had to wait until I got home to check the command history. One thing I noticed. I did:
sudo apt-get build-dep openoffice.org That is what the Building Guide currently instructs for Ubuntu: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Build_Instructions I'm seeing others in this thread say they did: sudo apt-get build-dep libreoffice That's my dependency problem right? -Rob On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 06.09.2011 21:09, schrieb Eike Rathke: > >> Hi Rob, >> >> On Tuesday, 2011-09-06 08:47:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> I did a build overnight on a freshly installed Ubuntu 11.04 (32-bit), >>> Fresh, clean, nothing extra installed. I had to even apt-get >>> subversion to get started. >> >> Well, yes, some basic tools aren't mentioned in the guide. Actually you >> could had even build OOo by downloading the source bundle generated from >> hg and wouldn't had needed mercurial installed. >> >>> 2) We should add instructions for needed edits to etc/apt/sources.lst >>> so the various required apt-get's work >> >> Strange, what did you need to edit sources.lst for? >> >>> 4) apt-get build-dep openoffice.org was insufficient. I received >>> configure errors after that and had to install many packages in >>> addition >> >> I encountered only two: libpam0g-dev and librsvg2-dev >> But this after apt-get build-dep libreoffice on Debian wheezy where >> openoffice.org is a transitional package. >> >>> 6) The bootstrap was pulling down dependencies from Hg. We need to >>> get those into SVN or Apache-Extras, right? >> >> Yes. > > Really? The "dependencies" (I assume these are the external tarballs) > are not stored in a Mercurial repo. Nevertheless we have to find a place > for them - or to get back to the old procedure that stored them inside > the repo. At least those that have a suitable license. > > Regards, > Mathias > >
