Re: OpenOffice.org1.1 crash with: version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libm.so.6 with linktime reference
Jan, I can start the ooffice1.1 without problems here on my debian ppc sid box (this is under debian glibc cvs 2.3.2-1). Everything seems to run fine so far. Jack
re: [announce] OpenOffice.org 1.1beta Debian packages
Chris, What I am finding on the mirrors in pool/contrib/openoffice.org doesn't make any sense. All I find for 1.1beta2 are non-arch packages (*all.deb) with no arch specific binary packages for i386 or powerpc...what's up with that? Jack ps Kevin Hendricks requested that I test his ppclinux build of OpenOffice 1.1beta2 and it works fine here under jdk 1.3.1-02d, debian glibc cvs 2.3.2-1 and debian ppc sid. On ppc, folks will definitely have problems with OpenOffice 1.1 until glibc 2.3.2-1 enters sid (or they build their own copy from debian glibc cvs). Also They will need to get jdk 1.3.1-02d which unfortunately hasn't been placed on the blackdown mirrors yet.
Re: Processed: only ppc, i386 works
Gotom, I downloaded the file in question... http://people.debian.org/~daenzer/Wissensw_1.pps ...and it loads fine under openoffice 1.0.3-2 from current debian sid against glibc 2.3.2-1. I don't have glibc 2.3.1-17 installed but I know there are significant thread issues with the recent debian glibc 2.3.1-1x releases that impact running gcc 3.2 built jdk-1.3.1's and the upcoming openoffice 1.1beta. We really need to get gcc 2.3.2-1 into Sarge for ppc. Jack ps I am thinking of these changes in particular... http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2003-02/msg00164.html which mentions... The changes since 2.3.1 are numerous and are no mere bug fixes. Significant changes all over the place have been made. The ELF TLS ABI has been implemented on numerous architectures. The PPC32 ABI finally got a thread register and the thread implementation therefore got more stable and faster. For more information about the changes consult the NEWS file and if necessary the ChangeLog. :wq
Bug#176932: openoffice.org: Printing to PDF files is so counterintuitive it looks broken
I'm not sure if it is in the upcoming 1.0.2, but the developer version 643c had a major rewrite of the pdf printing according to the release notes. Jack
gcj-only build
Has anyone looked at the current rawhide srpms for openoffice 1.0.1? They are using a little hackery to allow openoffice to use gcj instead of a real JDK. This would be worth implementing in our debian openoffice packages since it would break the dependency on JDK and allow it to be moved from contrib into main. Jack
Bug#171623: openoffice.org: OO crashes upon startu
Chris, I haven't seen any of these relocation error crashes on my debian ppc sid box using 1.0.1-6 of openoffice.org. The only issues I have seen are occasional quits on startup in openoffice from the absence of __libc_waitpic in glibc 2.3.1 or glibc cvs. My workaround on that was to delete the .openoffice directory in my account, move /usr/lib/j2se aside under a bogus name and rerun openoffice. This seems to cause openoffice not to find the jdk support and disable it for that account. I can move /usr/lib/j2se back and openoffice no longer randomly quits on startup (which is what Kevin expects from this bug). Jack
re: Bug#168778: marked as done (openoffice.org: Ugly trutype fonts in PPC build)
Is this really fixed for anyone? On my debian ppc sid box I am still having problems. In my case, unless I comment the line... FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 leaving only... FontPath/var/lib/defoma/x-ttcidfont-conf.d/dirs/TrueType I get no menus when openoffice starts up. I assume that the path fix in this new openoffice.org-debian-files_1.0.1-6+4_all.deb doesn't require me to trash my .openoffice directory in all the user accounts for the fix to be functional, right? I have msttcorefonts installed with the following in /var/lib/defoma/x-ttcidfont-conf.d/dirs/TrueType lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 41 Dec 3 20:22 Andale_Mono.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Andale_Mono.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 35 Dec 3 20:22 Arial.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Arial.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 41 Dec 3 20:22 Arial_Black.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Arial_Black.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 40 Dec 3 20:22 Arial_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Arial_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 47 Dec 3 20:22 Arial_Bold_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Arial_Bold_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 42 Dec 3 20:22 Arial_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Arial_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 43 Dec 3 20:22 Comic_Sans_MS.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Comic_Sans_MS.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 48 Dec 3 20:22 Comic_Sans_MS_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Comic_Sans_MS_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 41 Dec 3 20:22 Courier_New.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Courier_New.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 46 Dec 3 20:22 Courier_New_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Courier_New_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 53 Dec 3 20:22 Courier_New_Bold_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Courier_New_Bold_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 48 Dec 3 20:22 Courier_New_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Courier_New_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 37 Dec 3 20:22 Georgia.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Georgia.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 42 Dec 3 20:22 Georgia_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Georgia_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 49 Dec 3 20:22 Georgia_Bold_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Georgia_Bold_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 44 Dec 3 20:22 Georgia_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Georgia_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 36 Dec 3 20:22 Impact.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Impact.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 45 Dec 3 20:22 Times_New_Roman.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Times_New_Roman.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 50 Dec 3 20:22 Times_New_Roman_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Times_New_Roman_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 57 Dec 3 20:22 Times_New_Roman_Bold_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Times_New_Roman_Bold_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 52 Dec 3 20:22 Times_New_Roman_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Times_New_Roman_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 42 Dec 3 20:22 Trebuchet_MS.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Trebuchet_MS.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 47 Dec 3 20:22 Trebuchet_MS_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Trebuchet_MS_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 54 Dec 3 20:22 Trebuchet_MS_Bold_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Trebuchet_MS_Bold_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 49 Dec 3 20:22 Trebuchet_MS_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Trebuchet_MS_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 37 Dec 3 20:22 Verdana.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Verdana.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 42 Dec 3 20:22 Verdana_Bold.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Verdana_Bold.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 49 Dec 3 20:22 Verdana_Bold_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Verdana_Bold_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 44 Dec 3 20:22 Verdana_Italic.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Verdana_Italic.ttf lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 38 Dec 3 20:22 Webdings.ttf - /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Webdings.ttf -rw-r--r--1 root root 3141 Dec 3 20:22 encodings.dir -rw-r--r--1 root root0 Dec 3 20:22 fonts.alias -rw-r--r--1 root root22624 Dec 3 20:22 fonts.dir -rw-r--r--1 root root22624 Dec 3 20:22 fonts.scale Anyone else seeing this problem? Once I comment FontPath/usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4, openoffice runs fine and I can see the text in all the menus. So it seems this fix doesn't totally suffice. Jack
Re: Bug#168778: marked as done (openoffice.org: Ugly trutype fonts in PPC build)
Chris, That was the problem. I had a set of files, fonts.dir, fonts.scale, etc in /usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType but there were no font files or symlinks to font files. After deleting these files in /usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType and doing a mkfontdir in that directory, which created an empty fonts.dir file, I am now able to enable the /usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType fontpath without breaking openoffice. I think we should reopen Bug#168778 however and move it back over to the msttcorefonts package. We should ask them to modify msttcorefonts to have a postinst script which removes encodings.dir, fonts.alias, fonts.dir and fonts.scale from /usr/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType and then does a mkfontdir in there afterwards. That will insure that no breakage gets left behind from older broken versions of msttcorefonts having been installed. Jack
openoffice oddity
Jan, I haven't had time to look at this carefully yet but I believe if you run the current debian openoffice package with LD_DEBUG=files you'll see it is failing to load a shared lib in a non-fatal manner. I am wondering if you see the same thing on your machine (mine is running glibc cvs so I need a more *normal* reference point). The reason this concerns me is that I tried to open a Microsoft Word97 document last night and it was unrecognized. Even more disturbing was that if I select the Open command and try to select the file type submenu, it has no items in it. If I recall properly it should have a list of all available file types that can be opened, no? Oh, this is on debian ppc sid of course. Jack
openoffice.org 1.0.1-5 built wrong???
Jan, Since the debian gcc maintainers are in the process of removing gcc 3.1 from sid, I decided to purge it manually off of my machine and was shocked to see the following... bogus:/home# apt-get remove cpp-3.1 cpp-3.1-doc g77-3.1-doc gcc-3.1-base gcc-3.1-doc gij-3.1 gnat-3.1-doc libstdc++4 libstdc++4-doc Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: cpp-3.1 cpp-3.1-doc g77-3.1-doc gcc-3.1-base gcc-3.1-doc gij-3.1 gnat-3.1-doc libstdc++4 libstdc++4-doc openoffice.org openoffice.org-bin openoffice.org-l10n-en 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 12 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 177MB will be freed. This if for... ii openoffice.org 1.0.1-5high-quality office productivi ii openoffice.org 1.0.1-5OpenOffice.org office suite bi ii openoffice.org 1.0.1-5english_us language package fo which according to the changelog.Debian.gz... * Move to gcc 3.2 for both architectures So this doesn't make any sense at all. It would appear that openoffice.org 1.0.1-5 is in fact NOT built against gcc 3.2 as claimed. Either than or you are dragging around an incorrect Depends in your debian/control. Either way can we have a 1.0.1-6 rebuild with this resolved? Jack
re: openoffice.org 1.0.1-5 built wrong???
Jan, Looking at the binaries again, they all appear to be properly linked to libstdc++.so.5 so it must be a stale Depends in the debian/control file. We should do a 1.0.1-6 rebuild with this fixed though so folks can gracefully remove gcc 3.1.x from their machines. Jack
Bug#162240: incorrect Depends in openoffice.org 1.0.1-5
Package: openoffice.org Version: 1.0.1-5 It appears that openoffice.org has an incorrect Depends on libstdc++.so.4 when in fact it is linked to libstdc++.so.5 now. This shows up when one tries to purge off all of gcc 3.1.1 from a debian ppc sid machine with openoffice.org installed. Apt-get claims... # apt-get remove cpp-3.1 cpp-3.1-doc g77-3.1-doc gcc-3.1-base gcc-3.1-doc gij-3.1 gnat-3.1-doc libstdc++4 libstdc++4-doc Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: cpp-3.1 cpp-3.1-doc g77-3.1-doc gcc-3.1-base gcc-3.1-doc gij-3.1 gnat-3.1-doc libstdc++4 libstdc++4-doc openoffice.org openoffice.org-bin openoffice.org-l10n-en 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 12 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 177MB will be freed. which shouldn't be happening since openoffice.org 1.0.1-5 is built against gcc 3.2 and not 3.1.1. We need the debian/control fixed in openoffice.org and a 1.0.1-6 rebuild done. The debian gcc maintainers are in the process of removing gcc 3.1 from debian sid and this complicates its removal. Jack
openoffice breakage on new gcc 3.2.1 snapshot
Hello, Is anyone else seeing breakage of OpenOffice.org 1.0.1-5 after updating gcc-3.2 to the latest 3.2.1-0pre2 from 20020912? I see lots of errors of the form... 14922: /usr/lib/openoffice/program/libsal.so.3: error: relocation error: undefined symbol: component_canUnload (fatal) when I do LD_DEBUG=statistics openoffice. Jack
oo vs gcc 3.2
Jan, Speaking of mirroring, what is the status of the gcc 3.2 rebuilds of OpenOffice.org 1.0.1? I am rather confused by the state of things as seen from... http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.vpn-junkies.de/openoffice/pool/main/stlport/ http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.vpn-junkies.de/openoffice/pool/contrib/openoffice.org/ I see an openoffice.org 1.0.1-5 dsc which claims to Build-Depends g++-3.2 yet I don't see a libstlport4.5gcc3.2(-dev) clearly built on gcc 3.2! So while we have powerpc packages for openoffice.org 1.0.1-5 that by their control file must have been built with gcc 3.2 we don't seem to have gcc 3.2 libstlport4.5 packages built with gcc 3.2. Is that kosher considering that the c++ abi changed between gcc 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks in advance for any clarifications. Jack
Re: Gnome 2.0/Nautilius OO integration solved!!!
Jan, I've posted a bug report, 154622, against gnome-mime-data with a patch to change the command in gnome-vfs.applications from ooffice to openoffice. As far as I know, upstream doesn't provide a ooffice binary although I could picture them eventually renaming their soffice binary to ooffice to better distinguish themselves from StarOffice. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gnome 2.0/Nautilius OO integration solved!!!
In case anyone else is running Gnome 2.0 under debian sid, I discovered the trick to getting OpenOffice files recognized properly under Nautilius. With the current openoffice.org 1.0.1-3 packages you will find Nautilius can recognize openoffice files by their extensions and displays the appropriate icons on them. However you can't launch these documents directly into openoffice. The reason is that gnome-vfs 2.0 is preset to use openoffice via a 'ooffice' command. All you need to do is create a symlink for this as follows... ln -s /usr/bin/openoffice /usr/bin/ooffice ..and this will enable Nautilius to properly launch these files into OpenOffice under Gnome 2.0. Without this symlink, when you select the file and right click, the 'Open with' submenu will not show an OpenOffice.org entry. With this symlink, it appears and OpenOffice is the default on its own filetypes automatically. We should definitely add this 'ooffice' symlink to the next debian build of openoffice so we can have seemless integration with Gnome 2.0. Note that is this unlikely to ever work with Gnome 1.4 because the gnome-vfs in 1.4 has problems correctly detecting the filetype of openoffice files. This is because it associates these files with zip in error. This problem has been fixed in Gnome 2.0 but is unlikely to ever be backported to Gnome 1.4. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
one more Gnome desktop note for OO
I ran across one problem today after getting the Gnome 2.0 desktop and Nautilus to properly launch OpenOffice documents into OpenOffice.org (by the addition of the ooffice symlink). The icons on my .swx files disappeared. I turned out in trying to sort this all out I had accidentally caused a ~/.gnome/mime-info/user.keys and ~/.gnome/mime-info/user.mime to get created with bogus info. So if you are having any problems under Gnome 2.0 in getting the OpenOffice file icons to appear in Nautilus, make sure you don't have these user mime and keys files populated with any information about OpenOffice. You should be able to delete them and OpenOffice will work fine. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: openoffice 1.0.1-1 failure on debian ppc sid
Chris, However, unless I am greatly confused, there was a build of 1.0.1-rc3 done for the ppc as of July 14th. I downloaded the complete set of rc3 files on July 14th (and have archived copies). These work fine. On July 17th, for some reason part of rc3 got rebuilt yet again... File: openoffice.org_1.0.0-pre1.0.1rc3_all.deb 11123 KB 07/16/02 10:42:00 From this point on, openoffice.org 1.0.1-rc3 was broken on debian ppc sid (unless I regressed back to the archived copy of openoffice.org_1.0.0-pre1.0.1rc3_all.deb I had from July 14th. I am now seeing the same crashes with the new openoffice.org 1.0.1-1 that I did with the second rebuild of rc3. We really need to hear from some other debian ppc sid users to get a baseline here. On my machine, these newer builds are definitely broken. I'll ask on debian-powerpc for as many folks to test this as possible. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: openoffice 1.0.1-1 failure on debian ppc sid
Chris, Michel Danzer is seeing exactly the same behavior on debian ppc sid. He also saw the last rc3 build as being broken as well in the same fashion. The only thing I can say is that there was a build for debian ppc on July 14 (for which I have the binaries archived). This build date corresponds to the cvs change... http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/2002/debian-openoffice-200207/msg00126.html Then a few days later on Jul 16 only the *all.deb's got reposted from a newer build. That corresponds to http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/2002/debian-openoffice-200207/msg00141.html which makes be wonder if this is related to the mozilla address book support being re-enabled. Jack ps I'll try diff'ing the files in the two builds of openoffice.org_1.0.0-pre1.0.1rc3_all.deb and see if I can find the culrpit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
openoffice problem identified!
I think I have pinpointed the origin of the breakage in the
current openoffice.org 1.0.1-1 packages on debian ppc sid. I diff'd
the changes in the files between the Jul 14th and Jul 16th builds of
openoffice.org_1.0.0-pre1.0.1rc3_all.deb. I notice that there
is an installation database in usr/lib/openoffice/program/instdb.ins
which is filled with different values for the filesize and timestamp
depending on which arch it was built on. In particular, the Jul 14th
copy of openoffice.org_1.0.0-pre1.0.1rc3_all.deb appears to have
been built on ppc...
/openoffice/program/applicat.rdb differ
diff -uNr rc3rev1/usr/lib/openoffice/program/bootstraprc
rc3rev2/usr/lib/openoffice/program/bootstraprc
--- rc3rev1/usr/lib/openoffice/program/bootstraprc 2002-07-14
09:03:04.0 -0400
+++ rc3rev2/usr/lib/openoffice/program/bootstraprc 2002-07-09
08:37:44.0 -0400
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Section=Versions
BaseInstallation=$SYSBINDIR/..
UserInstallation=${$Location:$Section:$ProductKey}
-buildid=SRC641_[7663]_LINUX_POWERPC__shaun_at_7/13/02_7:31:48
+buildid=SRC641_[7663]_LINUX_INTEL__shawn_at_09/07/02_14:15:19
InstallMode=NETWORK
ProductPatch=(1.0.1)
Note that the second build of this package, which fails to run on ppc,
was built on intel. Also when I check the same file in the current
openoffice 1.0.1-1 packages I find it was built on intel so its not
surprising the package is broken on ppc.
Jack
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
offending file found
I have identified the offending file in openoffice.org_1.0.1-1_all.deb as usr/lib/openoffice/program/applicat.rdb. If I install the intel build of this over the ppc build of openoffice.org_1.0.1-1_all.deb, openoffice breaks. If I install the ppc build of this file over the intel build of openoffice.org_1.0.1-1_all.deb, then openoffice gets fixed. We need to move usr/lib/openoffice/program/applicat.rdb into a arch-specific binary deb. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with OpenOffice.org and gcc-3.1 on PowerPC and perhaps on intel, too! [was: kevin.hendricks@sympatico.ca: [dev] question on cppuhelper throwException and double TYPELIB_DANGER_RELEASE]
Jan, The patch that I have for libgcc-compat causes the code to be built with or without gcc-3.1 being used for the build. If you are finding that soffice fails due to an illegal instruction, you might try rebuilding glibc 2.2.5 under gcc 2.95.4 and see if that causes the symbols to be resolved. I am going to give that a try right now and see if it helps. If it does provide a solution we can just ask Ben Collins to use the libgcc-compat patch the next time he does a gcc 2.95.4 build of glibc 2.2.5 and that should resolve the problems. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: ttf font troubles
Tim, I don't see that problem here with msttcorefonts. I didn't do anything with the printer admin utility to make Verdana show up. Just installing mssttcorefonts and letting it download/install the fonts was sufficient for them to appear in the fonts menu of openoffice.org-1.0.0-3. I can get Verdana to do bold, italic, underline and all combinations of those without problem. The only complaint I have about msttcorefonts is that it currently doesn't cleanly deinstall itself. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
java and oo can work!
Hello, I looked back through April mailing list archive for this group and am extremely puzzled by some declarations being made that java was disabled in the debian-openoffice builds. That is definitely not true at all. Java applets can work fine. You have just annoyed users by hiding the toggle to enable it. For example, on my debian ppc sid machine with Stephen Zander's new jre 1.3.1-2 packages installed if I use openoffice to run openoffice.org, the program automatically configures my account for running openoffice.org but java applet support is disabled. HOWEVER, if I go into .openoffice in my account, run setup to remove all of the oo files from my account and then manually run /usr/lib/openoffice/programs/setup I get the normal gui setup program. In there, when asked to identify the jre, I browse to /usr/lib/j2se/1.3 and the debian-openoffice recognized the jre and uses it. I can then open the j2sdk 1.3 clock demo html and see the applet load inside openoffice. So again you guys are NOT disabling java support in openoffice but merely hiding it. I see no reason why you can't adjust the openoffice script to check for the jre directory and enable java in each users account. Again this does NOT make openoffice.org require java in anyway shape or form. It simply allows the program to take advantage of it. Thanks in advance for considering this request. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
major problems with -3
I was happily running the stock OpenOffice 1.0 build and made the major blunder of trying to install the new openoffice.org 1.0-3 package on debian ppc sid. Now I can't run openoffice at all. I had deinstalled the old copy from /usr/local/OpenOffice.org1.0 and removed the .soffice, .sversionrc and .openoffice files/dirs from my account. After doing an apt-get install on the new openoffice.org package it installs however when I run the openoffice program I get windows appearing but no text for the menu items. This problem looks similar to what happened with one of Kevin Hendrick's builds some months back when the font registry was missing an entry in oo. What is really annoying me is that I can't reinstall the stock version now. Doing a dpkg -purge openoffice.org and then removing the . files in my directory doesn't appear to be sufficient to purge my machine of the debian package. When I follow the normal installation instructions for the stock openoffice release it installs in /usr/local/OpenOffice.org1.0 as before. However when as a user I run setup, the setup program starts up but craps out with an blank window appearing. To me this suggests that the debian openoffice is installing stuff outside of the ability of dpkg to purge and these libs/binaries are conflicting with the stock build. I STRONGLY urge the debian openoffice.org maintainers to make sure they can install on a virgin machine, purge the installation and then reinstall the stock non-debain openoffice installer. This is essential to make sure that we aren't polluting peoples machines with files not tightly associated with the openoffice.org1.0 package such that dpkg -purge can remove them. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-3 problems solved
I found the bad player in my attempt to install openoffice.org 1.0-3 on my debian ppc sid machine. I had tried to removed msttcorefonts from my system with dpkg --purge at some point. That appears to be insufficient to remove all traces of the downloaded mstt fonts but deconfigures them thus causing openoffice to have problems with its fonts. I reinstalled msttcorefonts allowing it to download and reinstall the mstt fonts and now openoffice.org works fine. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
java and openoffice.org 1.0-3
Hello, Now that I have the font issue sorted out I decided to test the latest debian ppc jdk packages that Stephen Zander released... deb http://people.debian.org/~gibreel/debian sid main non-free deb-src http://people.debian.org/~gibreel/debian sid main non-free He used a new build of j2sdk 1.3.1 which I did that is linked against a -fPIC libXm.a so that openoffice java applet support works. I tested this against Kevin Hendrick's OpenOffice 1.0 build. I am having trouble getting the debian openoffice.org package to do the same. I noticed that it never asked me where the java environment was when I ran openoffice as a user the first time. Do you guys have java disabled? The location of Stephen's java enviroment in his package is... /usr/lib/j2se/1.3 Shouldn't we have this path checked in the openoffice.org packages and java enabled if it is present? I tried running setup from .openoffice in my account but I was only presented with the choice of deinstalling it from my account. Should I deinstall it and run setup again so I can select the j2re? Thanks in advance for any hints. Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
