On 03/22/2012 10:56 PM, Terry wrote: > The post below reminds me of an old chestnut. Linux versions are now > packaged as rpms or debs. That could be problematic if the > installer works in a way which is incompatible with a particular > operating system (OS). > > That problem is always on my mind. Try as I have, I have been unable > to find (so far) a Linux OS which suits me as well as my present one. > I have also been unable to find a Linux operating system which > supports OpenOffice. Sooner or later, I will quite possibly have to > switch to LibreOffice just because the OO installer borks my OS.
Which distro? The .deb files install to the /opt directory so there is not interference with a system installed OO. I have multiple OO's installed on this system, including the original distro supplied OOo 3.2: $ locate soffice.bin /opt/libreoffice/program/soffice.bin /opt/libreoffice3.4/program/soffice.bin /opt/libreoffice3.5/program/soffice.bin /opt/ooo-dev3/program/soffice.bin /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice.bin /opt/x-openoffice.org3-x/program/soffice.bin /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin I'd have to fire up Fedora in a VM to find out where the .rpm files are installed, but I seem to recollect that they also were installed /opt? > > My recollection is that several years ago there was at least a > discussion about the possibility of a package of the same kind as > Firefox and Thunderbird. Mozilla provides a compressed folder > containing everything you need apart from plugins and, I dare say, > Mozilla could include plugins if it wanted to. > > In other words, the Mozilla software does NOT interfere with the > operating system. It is self-contained. That would most likely make things easier for some, more difficult for others. On the latter; I prefer having separate .deb packages as then I can cull the unwanted dictionaries etc., before installing. Also, the program is so large that I find it nice to be able to watch the terminal log & if a .deb package failed to install, see the error message for that particular package. > > That may be too big an issue for bugs. Does anyone think it worth > raising the issue and, if so, through which channel? > > Terry > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> To: >> [email protected] Cc: Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 1:26 >> PM Subject: Re: CVE-2012-0037: OpenOffice.org data leakage >> vulnerability >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM, NoOp <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 03/22/2012 03:17 PM, Terry wrote: >>>> This quote from the page mentioned by Rob: >>>> >>>> <quote>Linux and other platforms should consult their distro or >>>> >> OS >>>> vendor for patch instructions.</quote> >>>> >>>> My distro doesn't support OpenOffice; most, I gather, don't. >>> ... >> >> This is good to know, very good in fact. We were working on >> several assumptions: >> >> 1) There were some users running OOo 3.3 on commercially supported >> LTS Linux builds. In those cases we did not want to encourage the >> user to mess with their files directly. It is important in those >> cases that they get the patch from their vendor. >> >> 2) Other users would just be using the latest distro support, which >> in most cases have silently switched OOo to LibreOffice. Since >> LibreOffice also fixed this same issue, such users would also get >> the patch via their vendor's update mechanism. >> >> What we did not know is the number of Linux users who uninstalled >> LibreOffice and manually installed OOo 3.3 instead. From the >> sounds of it, there are many such users. Me bad for missing that. >> But good for the future of the project that there are so many with >> a preference for OpenOffice. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
