Bug#585979: openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr: French thesaurus does not work on anything other than fr_FR
Package: openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr Version: 3.2.0~rc2-5 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable On any other locale than fr_FR, thesaurus is not found in OpenOffice.org. It has been fixed for fr_FR recently, but fr_BE, fr_LU, and more are left over. The following tiny patch fixes this for other OOo locales impacted. -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.4 APT prefers proposed-updates APT policy: (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash --- debian/openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr.links.orig 2010-06-15 12:22:10.0 +0200 +++ debian/openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr.links2010-06-15 12:25:19.0 +0200 @@ -2,5 +2,15 @@ /usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/myspell/dicts/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_v2.dat /usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_BE_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_BE_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CA_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CA_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CH_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CH_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_LU_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_LU_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_MC_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_MC_v2.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_v2.dat /usr/share/myspell/dicts/th_fr_v2.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_v2.idx /usr/share/myspell/dicts/th_fr_v2.idx
Bug#585979: openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr: French thesaurus does not work on anything other than fr_FR
On 15/06/10 13:11, Rene Engelhard wrote: severity 585979 wishlist tag 585979 + pending thanks Hi Rene, On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:34:37PM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: Package: openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr Version: 3.2.0~rc2-5 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable And why on earth is this a grave bug? Correct, it is not. How on earth does it make unusable? Does it work in fr_FR? Yes, it does. Of course it is, as it makes it completely useless (not accessible at all) for the many people running OOo in French, but not fr_FR (Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland, Canada). While the source package might not be as a whole, openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr is not working at all for those people. +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_BE_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_BE_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CA_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CA_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CH_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_CH_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_LU_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_LU_v2.dat +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.idx /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_MC_v2.idx +/usr/share/mythes/thes_fr_FR.dat /usr/share/mythes/th_fr_MC_v2.dat Already done so in the 3.2.1 packages (which haven't been uploaded yet due to other reasons, unfortunately) Grüße/Regards, René -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-openoffice-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c17899b.7050...@beeznest.net
Bug#585979: openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr: French thesaurus does not work on anything other than fr_FR
On 15/06/10 16:27, Rene Engelhard wrote: severity 585979 important thanks On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:09:31PM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: Of course it is, as it makes it completely useless (not accessible at all) for the many people running OOo in French, but not fr_FR (Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland, Canada). True. Didn't deny that. While the source package might not be as a whole, openoffice.org-thesaurus-fr is not working at all for those people. for those people. Not for all. The package is not unusable for fr_FR people. Don't misunderstand me, I see the need to register it for all of them too (that's why I actually did it already) but grave imho is a too high severity. The highest you can argue for imho is important: important a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone. compared to grave makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of users who use the package. This is getting off-topic, but I used reportbug to report it and it said: 2 grave makes the package in question unusable by most or all users, or causes data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of users who use the package. You see my point? Anyway, I don't care personally, as I'm able to fix the problem for my customers, but I wanted to report it to ensure it being fixed some day, and even get to Ubuntu someday. Grüße/Regards, René -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-openoffice-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c17dfba.1090...@beeznest.net
Bug#397857: The 2nd Debian Openoffice.org bug triage - bug #397857
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 23:18 +0200, Lior Kaplan wrote: 1. When closing with version info, you can see the bug is still relevant for stable. 2. The bug will not be fixed for the stable release (only security or grave bugs are fixed there). 3. The real question is whether the bug exists in newer versions... Thanks for those clarifications. I just tested on my up-to-date Sid PC and I can sadly confirm the exact same bug is still present: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ xvfb-run -a /usr/bin/openoffice -invisible -nologo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin X11 error: Can't open display: :99 Set DISPLAY environment variable, use -display option or check permissions of your X-Server (See man X resp. man xhost for details) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -l openoffice.org ii openoffice.org 1:2.4.0~rc1-2 OpenOffice.org Office suite Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#397857: openoffice.org-common: Script /usr/bin/openoffice does not work with xvfb-run
Package: openoffice.org-common Version: 2.0.4-5 Severity: normal If you try to start OOo with script /usr/bin/openoffice from under xvfb-run, it fails like this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ xvfb-run -a /usr/bin/openoffice -invisible -nologo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin X11 error: Can't open display: :99 Set DISPLAY environment variable, use -display option or check permissions of your X-Server (See man X resp. man xhost for details) While it works when started directly from /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice. I must admit I did not yet take a look at script openoffice to see where it could mess with $DISPLAY. Thanks -- System Information: Debian Release: 4.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (200, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-686 Locale: LANG=fr_BE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_BE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages openoffice.org-common depends on: ii dictionaries-common [openoffi 0.70.6 Common utilities for spelling dict openoffice.org-common recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#369729: wrong package
Le jeudi 01 juin 2006 à 14:40 +0200, Nieko Woets a écrit : I finally figured out it is libfreetype6 causing the OOo ugly fonts by recompiling it from Sarge sources. Using the Sarge sources restored the OOo fonts back to a clear and crisp look. Sorry guys, I'm trying ;) This is most probably caused by bug #359104. kind regards, Hope it helps. Nieko -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net
PyUNO does not work in backport to Sarge
Just to let you know that PyUNO in backport of OOo2 to Sarge does not work. To test it: just start a Python interpreter and type import uno. An error message arises when it does not work. It does not say anything if it works. It didn't work either in 2.0.0-2 in Sid, and now works with 2.0.0-3. Regards -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net
Bug#341609: openoffice.org-common: splash image not customized for Debian
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:50 +0100, Rene Engelhard a écrit : Hi, Jerome Warnier wrote: The splash image is not customized for Debian. I thought it had to with the new build system. Is it meant to be like this? It actually is ;-). Compare the progress bars between the and OOo versions (provided that you accepted the sofficerc changes or installed from scratch) ;-) Yes, I did. I don't have the official OO.org, only the Debian one. Wrt the swirl, you are right, though. That didn't get updated (and thefore removed) for 2.0. Would be possible to readd though but I actually am not sure whether we should do that... Yes, I was talking about that, because there was some more customization previously, which disappeared. Personally, I don't care but I thought it had been forgotten. Thanks anyway Regards, Rene -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net
Re: PyUNO does not work in backport to Sarge
Le samedi 03 décembre 2005 à 19:36 +0100, Rene Engelhard a écrit : Hi, Jerome Warnier wrote: Just to let you know that PyUNO in backport of OOo2 to Sarge does not work. I know. Because it is based on 2.0.0-2. It didn't work either in 2.0.0-2 in Sid, and now works with 2.0.0-3. Exactly. Because 2.0.0-3 explicitely fixed that. The next backport will have that fixed. Great then. Otherwise, this backport seems to work nicely, thanks. Regards, Rene -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net
Bug#341718: openoffice.org: PDF export button and menu are identical to Export...
Package: openoffice.org Version: 2.0.0-1bpo3 Severity: normal This problem is only present in the backport, version in Unstable does not show this behaviour. The button and menu to export to PDF both lead to the function Export... where you can choose between XHTML and PDF (and XHTML is selected by default). Regards -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages openoffice.org depends on: ii openoffice.org-base 2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite - data ii openoffice.org-calc 2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite - spre ii openoffice.org-core 2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite archit ii openoffice.org-draw 2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite - draw ii openoffice.org-impress 2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite - pres ii openoffice.org-math 2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite - equa ii openoffice.org-writer2.0.0-1bpo3 OpenOffice.org office suite - word -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341590: openoffice.org-gnome should replaces: openoffice.org-gtk-gnome (2.0.0)
Package: openoffice.org-gnome Version: 2.0.0-2 Severity: normal I think that upgrading from OOo 1.1.x to 2.0.0 should bring openoffice.org-gnome if openoffice.org-gtk-gnome was previously installed. For this purpose, I propose to add a Replaces: openoffice.org-gtk-gnome (2.0.0). Regards -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-2-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages openoffice.org-gnome depends on: ii libatk1.0-0 1.10.3-1The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libbonobo2-0 2.10.1-1Bonobo CORBA interfaces library ii libc62.3.5-8.1 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgcc1 1:4.0.2-4 GCC support library ii libgconf2-4 2.12.1-4GNOME configuration database syste ii libglib2.0-0 2.8.4-2 The GLib library of C routines ii libgnomevfs2-0 2.12.1.1-1 The GNOME virtual file-system libr ii libgtk2.0-0 2.8.8-1 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii liborbit21:2.12.4-1 libraries for ORBit2 - a CORBA ORB ii libpango1.0-01.10.1-1Layout and rendering of internatio ii libstdc++6 4.0.2-4 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libstlport4.6c2 4.6.2-3 STLport C++ class library ii libx11-6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-11 X Window System protocol client li ii openoffice.org-core 2.0.0-2 OpenOffice.org office suite archit ii xlibs6.8.2.dfsg.1-11 X Window System client libraries m openoffice.org-gnome recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341609: openoffice.org-common: splash image not customized for Debian
Package: openoffice.org-common Version: 2.0.0-2 Severity: wishlist The splash image is not customized for Debian. I thought it had to with the new build system. Is it meant to be like this? Regards -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-2-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages openoffice.org-common depends on: ii dictionaries-common [openoffi 0.62.5 Common utilities for spelling dict ii openoffice.org-core 2.0.0-2OpenOffice.org office suite archit ii openoffice.org-l10n-en-us 2.0.0-2English_american language package ii python2.3.5-3An interactive high-level object-o openoffice.org-common recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Typo on website
On the main webpage of http://openoffice.debian.net/, I noticed the following typos. OpenOffice.org 1.1.x supports the i386, PowerPC, SPARC and S390 archectures as linux versions. Where architectures misses a it and Linux should be written with a capital. Regards -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hunspell sources not found
While trying to build on Sarge, I fixed already some problems I had, but I get the following message, whatever I do: Unpacking OO.o build tree - [ go make some tea ] ... Linking rc3 to 2.0.0 Fixing unfortunate snafus Copying mdbtools into the tree Copying default evolution database into tree Unpacking hunspell UNO sources Copying hunspell library sources into the tree cp: cannot stat `/root/openoffice.org-2.0.0/ooo-build/src/hunspell-1.0.8.tar.gz': No such file or directory make[1]: *** [/root/openoffice.org-2.0.0/ooo-build/build/ooo680-m3/unpack] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/openoffice.org-2.0.0/ooo-build' make: *** [debian/stampdir/build] Error 2 I backported and installed libhunspell-dev (1.1.0-2), but even forcing USE_SYSTEM_HUNSPELL=y in debian/rules does not find it. So I tried with the internal version, but as you can see hereup, it is looking for a file ooo-build/src/hunspell-1.0.8.tar.gz while there only exist the following in that directory: hunspell_UNO_1.1.tar.gz I guess this would be a problem also for anyone not using the system hunspell. How can I fix this? Thanks -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOo2 backport to Sarge
Please find here-attached a patch to debian/rules (from version 2.0.0-2) to fix some problems and even do some extra. It is pretty small and quickly read/checked so please get back to me if any problem. Hope it helps. -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net rules.patch.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Re: Hunspell sources not found
[..] How can I fix this? Forget it, it works now, even though I don't understand why. Thanks -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OOo2 backport to Sarge
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 21:54 +0100, Rene Engelhard a écrit : -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Jerome Warnier wrote: Please find here-attached a patch to debian/rules (from version 2.0.0-2) to fix some problems and even do some extra. It is pretty small and quickly read/checked so please get back to me if any problem. a) system-icu NEEDS = 3.4. It won't work with an older one. So it's right that there's internal icu for sarge. Ok. I didn't know that. b) you remove ENABLE_HUNSPELL? Why? And you really want to use internal hunspell to not have to backport other packages than OOo. You just need to add the hunspell package to ooo-build/src. What I incidentially forgot in 2.0.0-2 so it doesn't appear in the diff. Will be fixed for - -3. Oups, no, I did not want to remove it, I accidentally removed one line too much. If you take a look at it carefully, I just wanted to include the condition about Sarge in the condition about Ubuntu. That's it. When do you plan to upload -3? Or, where can we find it in the meantime, to base my trials on it? c) wrt gamin and fam, you are right, but that's minor. You currently need -d for the build-depends anyway so... But I can add it for -3, yes.. Thanks I have yet another problem later, which is due to my build taking place in a x86 chroot on and AMD64 Debian. If someone has got an idea about it or wants more info... Otherwise, don't worry, I will try to sort this out myself. Regards, Rene -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
oooprelink for OOo 2.0
Rene, Chris, I sent you this updated oooprelink for OOo 2.0 but did not have any answer and just noticed that OOo 2.0 in Unstable does not yet provide such a script. Is it completely unuseful or what? I send it here so that maybe other people can comment on it. Thanks -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net oooprelink2 Description: application/shellscript
Re: oooprelink for OOo2
[..] But well, it does not work for the moment on my PC (Sid) because OOo2 does not find libstlport_gcc.so.4.6. This is another story, and I hope that my patch (made in about 5 minutes) helps. I created a link today to fix this issue (linking to /usr/lib/openoffice2/program/libstlport_gcc.so), and the prelinking seems to work. I don't know how to do meaningful comparison of loading times with or without prelinking, but at least it doesn't fail to load after prelinking. ;-) [..] -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I've tested ooo2 1.9.108-1 for you
(Sorry for the long delay, I haven't had a fast Internet connection at home for more than one month now, and it is definitely not viable. I'll get one this week.) Le mercredi 06 juillet 2005 à 02:31 +0200, Rene Engelhard a écrit : Hi, Jérôme Warnier wrote: 1) I'm using GNOME, and for whatever reason, the icons where not in the menu after the installation. Logout and back in fixes it. Don't know if this is a problem in GNOME or in OOo. If you want, I can investigate. Normal I guess. No, if you get FAM or Gamin installed, it should appear immediately in the GNOME menu. At least other programs do. [..] 3) Special prelinking (oooprelink) does not seem to be needed anymore. That's probably great news. Well, didn't port it yet.. The binaries are not prelinked in any way :) Then it's probably bad news, as I have no idea on how to help you on that. Should we expect noticeable performance improvement with that, as OOo 1.x did? Is there any way I can help? 4) openoffice.org2-evolution does not conflict with openoffice.org-evolution. I wonder if it would be a good idea anyway... are the two versions meant to coexist on the same machine? I guess not. Why not? Knowing that both versions are supposed to coexist on the same machine, it's ok. 5) Old languages packages are left there also. 1.1.x? Sure. 1.1.x and 2.0 should be parallel installable for now. Fine then, same thing as above. 6) It seems weird to me that mozilla-openoffice.org is the only one without 2 in the package name. yes, an oversight. But it's minor and I guess it doesn't matter that much No, it's only cosmetic... unless both versions are meant to coexist. Grüße/Regards, Rene -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
oooprelink for OOo2
[..] 3) Special prelinking (oooprelink) does not seem to be needed anymore. That's probably great news. Well, didn't port it yet.. The binaries are not prelinked in any way :) Then it's probably bad news, as I have no idea on how to help you on that. Should we expect noticeable performance improvement with that, as OOo 1.x did? Is there any way I can help? I decided to give it a try. It's not working, but it can maybe help a bit. I decided to take old oooprelink from you (Rene) and try to adapt it for OOo2. First, I was surprised to notice that no /etc/openoffice or /etc/openoffice2 exist anymore. So, I disabled (for testing) the prelink=yes test at the beginning and continued. I then changed the hardcoded list of executables to prelink in the main part using the following one-liner to find them: file /usr/lib/openoffice.org2/program/*|grep executable|grep -v script|cut -d: -f1|grep -v \.bin$ The part of it I do not like is the grep on executable which should probably use something like uses shared libs instead. Anyway, this is not supposed to be automatic, only for us to determine the executables to prelink there once when writing the script. Here is my patch: === cut here === --- oooprelink 2005-08-10 20:50:34.0 +0200 +++ oooprelink2 2005-08-10 21:12:33.0 +0200 @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ set -e -if [ -f /etc/openoffice/settings.debconf ]; then - . /etc/openoffice/settings.debconf -else - prelink=false -fi +#if [ -f /etc/openoffice/settings.debconf ]; then +# . /etc/openoffice/settings.debconf +#else +# prelink=false +#fi + +prelink=true #DEBUG=--verbose @@ -35,21 +37,21 @@ fi if [ $prelink = true ]; then - echo -n Prelinking OpenOffice.org binaries... + echo -n Prelinking OpenOffice.org2 binaries... /usr/sbin/prelink $DEBUG \ - --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice/program \ - --conserve-memory --libs-only /usr/lib/openoffice/ + --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice2/program \ + --conserve-memory --libs-only /usr/lib/openoffice2/ /usr/sbin/prelink $DEBUG \ - --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice/program \ - --conserve-memory /usr/lib/openoffice/program/*.bin \ - /usr/lib/openoffice/program/ooovirg \ - /usr/lib/openoffice/program/regcomp \ - /usr/lib/openoffice/program/pagein \ - /usr/lib/openoffice/program/gnomeint - if [ ! -d /var/state/openoffice ]; then - mkdir -p /var/state/openoffice + --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice2/program \ + --conserve-memory /usr/lib/openoffice2/program/*.bin \ + /usr/lib/openoffice2/program/pagein \ + /usr/lib/openoffice2/program/gnome-set-default-application \ + /usr/lib/openoffice2/program/javaldx \ + /usr/lib/openoffice2/program/nsplugin + if [ ! -d /var/state/openoffice2 ]; then + mkdir -p /var/state/openoffice2 fi - touch /var/state/openoffice/ooo_is_prelinked + touch /var/state/openoffice2/ooo_is_prelinked echo done. # only i386 has an additional dep on libstdc++3 ARCH=`dpkg --print-architecture` @@ -60,11 +62,11 @@ echo you need to prelink again. echo Run /usr/sbin/oooprelink then. elif [ $prelink = false ]; then - if [ -f /var/state/openoffice/ooo_is_prelinked ]; then - echo -n Undoing prelinking of OpenOffice.org binaries... + if [ -f /var/state/openoffice2/ooo_is_prelinked ]; then + echo -n Undoing prelinking of OpenOffice.org2 binaries... /usr/sbin/prelink --undo $DEBUG \ - --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice/program \ - --conserve-memory /usr/lib/openoffice \ + --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice2/program \ + --conserve-memory /usr/lib/openoffice2 \ 2/dev/null #/usr/sbin/prelink --undo $DEBUG \ # --ld-library-path=/usr/lib/openoffice/program \ @@ -73,7 +75,7 @@ # /usr/lib/openoffice/program/regcomp \ # /usr/lib/openoffice/program/pagein \ # /usr/lib/openoffice/program/gnomeint - rm -f /var/state/openoffice/ooo_is_prelinked + rm -f /var/state/openoffice2/ooo_is_prelinked echo done. fi else === cut here === But well, it does not work for the moment on my PC (Sid) because OOo2 does not find libstlport_gcc.so.4.6. This is another story, and I hope that my patch (made in about 5 minutes) helps. [..] Thanks to all, and especially to Rene and Chris. -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#284331: openoffice.org: right-to-left interface is behaving incorrectly
This bug should be marked l10n, right? Regards -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net
Unused copy of fonts in config directory
Hi guys, I'm using Sarge. I just noticed that there was a directory .openoffice.org/1.0.1/user/fonts full of TrueType fonts in my home (almost 8MB here). I can delete (well, move elsewhere) the directory without anything (noticeably) changing, and without the directory being recreated on next OOo (Writer) launch. If that matters, I upgraded OOo many times on this PC (from Woody to Sarge, and every Sarge intermediate version). Yes, I'm still one of your biggest fan. ;-) PS: I didn't submit to the BTS because I'm not sure it is reproducible. -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#286989: openoffice.org: OOo doesn't start with libc6-i686
I run happily OOo with libc6-i686 for month now on Sarge and Sid, both on PII(I)-class x86 computers. Can you still reproduce it? Otherwise, it would be a good idea to close the bug. Regards -- Jérôme Warnier FLOSS Consultant http://beeznest.net
OOo2 and 64-bits architectures
Finally, is it supposed to build on 64-bits architectures? I heard it is not working as expected and OOo 2.0 may well ship without official 64-bits architectures. Is this right? Thanks -- Jerome Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] BeezNest -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenOffice 1.1.2 finished
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 07:36, Olaf Leidinger wrote: Hello! The new build is finished now, and seems to work. The following packages where created: openoffice.org_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-bin_1.1.2-3_i386.deb openoffice.org-l10n-af_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ar_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ca_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-cs_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-cy_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-da_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-de_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-el_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-en_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-es_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-et_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-fi_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-fr_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-he_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-hi_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-hu_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-it_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ja_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ko_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-nb_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ns_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-pl_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-pt_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-pt-br_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-ru_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-sk_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-sl_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-sv_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-th_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-tr_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-zh-cn_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-zh-tw_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-zu_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-mimelnk_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-thesaurus-en-us_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-nl_1.1.2-3_all.deb openoffice.org-l10n-nn_1.1.2-3_all.deb But the build depends on openoffice.org-debian-files, which wasn't created. This isn't normal, is it? I installed it from sid/unstable to solve the deps. It is indeed a separate source package. I don't know if you would need to rebuild it, as it wouldn't have any differences in. And it seems as if your ximian/gnome patchset doesn't include the gtk+2.0 widget patch, which makes OO widgets look like gtk+ ones. Isn't it stable enough? It was at least included in the ximian-openoffice ebuild from gentoo and worked very well for me. So, you just used the ximian patchset without using debian's one? I'm not sure it is a really good idea. The best would be to use both at the same time (or in fact, merge both patchlists). Ciao, Olaf -- Jerome Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] BeezNest s.a r.l.
Re: [Open Office] [Fwd: Re: OOo opens several windows when opening a single document]
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 16:16, Rene Engelhard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jerome, Jerome Warnier wrote: I now know more about the problem: it seems to occur when the files are opened from Nautilus only, and seems to be more frequent when the files are in MS Office format's. I wonder if Ximian doesn't have already a fix to this... Michael? I asked Michael one time on IRC but apparently forgot to reply to you: yes, Ximian has a workaround for this. And? Where can I get it? Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAqhrK+FmQsCSK63MRAuAJAJ4h6Lc3NgPAj02ExN6568E5WsGadQCeOcEn HCkVzkCJfH5LBDhEvSpRggI= =ePyz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Openoffice mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/openoffice -- Jerome Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] BeezNest s.a r.l.
Please provide msfontextract package
Please provide msfontextract from Kevin Hendrickx in the packages or in a separate package. It is useful for FontOOo (http://oooconv.free.fr/fontooo/), a font installer for OOo. Thanks -- Jerome Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] BeezNest s.a r.l.
Re: Please provide msfontextract package
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 13:55, Kevin B.Hendricks wrote: Hi, cabextract is not LGPL and can't be part of OOo so we used libmspack which is LGPL to create msfontextract. But if you install msttcorefonts at the core os level then you will not ever need msfontextract since OOo will automatically pick up the system truetype fonts. I wonder if FontOOo could be useful at all on Debian, as most the downloadable fonts are already available as packages. Maybe it could try to detect if the fonts are already on the system, and only install those which don't. Perhaps I could ask Laurent to check if msfontextract exists and if not simply not show the ms tt fonts as a download possibility. That way you won't need msfontextract at all on a system where you know msttcorefonts have already been installed. Kevin On Apr 14, 2004, at 5:23 AM, Chris Halls wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 11:00, Jerome Warnier wrote: Please provide msfontextract from Kevin Hendrickx in the packages or in a separate package. We already have cabextract in Debian (used my msttcorefonts), and Debian suffers enough already many packages to do the same thing. Maybe you can provide a patch to use cabextract instead? Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jerome Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] BeezNest s.a r.l.
Bug#190723: openoffice.org-debian-files: should suggest package menu
Package: openoffice.org-debian-files Version: 1.0.3-2+1 Severity: normal I think this package should really at least suggest menu, otherwise it is far less usefull. Regards -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 with bunk-1 packages by Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux aphrodite 2.4.20-1-k6 #1 Sat Mar 22 14:38:19 EST 2003 i586 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages openoffice.org-debian-files depends on: ii openoffice.org1.0.3-2high-quality office productivity s
Bug#186023: openoffice.org-debian-files: wrong file extension for mspowerpoint in mime template
Package: openoffice.org-debian-files Version: 1.0.2-2+1 Severity: normal In file /usr/lib/mime/packages/openoffice.org-debian-files, the application/mspowerpoint and application/vnd.ms-powerpoint templates are filled with nametemplate=%s.xls. I guess they should be nametemplate=%s.pps. Am I wrong? -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux aphrodite 2.4.20-k6 #1 Mon Jan 13 23:49:14 EST 2003 i586 Locale: LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 Versions of packages openoffice.org-debian-files depends on: ii openoffice.org1.0.2-2high-quality office productivity s
French spellchecker package
Rene, did you get the package I sent you some time ago? If so, did you already take a look at it?
Re: French spellchecker package
[...] There are two issues I remember, though: 1) Uploaders: and Maintainer: was wrong, you want to do it so: Maintainer: Debian OpenOffice Team debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org Uploaders: Jerome Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was not sure of the way to do it. I was expecting you to fix that, though ;-) heh :) I would have done it f I haven't forget it. Well, considering I waited for about 6 month to do the package, which needed very few modifications, it is not really important. 2) The second and the first from the bottom name Chris. Is that right or an error? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. There was something like blah (12345-3) ... * foo bar baz -- Jerome Warnier . blah (12345-2) ... * foo2 -- Chris Halls . [1] blah (12345-1) * foo3 -- Chris Halls . [1] [1] or only [EMAIL PROTECTED], not sure... And how should I do it? I didn't do the package from the beginning, I just adapted it... But maybe should I put who made this version of the package really available, in this case it should be me? 3) Why -fr-fr? In http://cvs.debian.org/*checkout*/guides/spellcheck-packaging/ooo-spellcheck-pkg-guide.ps?rev=1.1cvsroot=debian-openofficecontent-type=application/postscript there is written that for single languages there only should be a -isocode. Or is there a possibility to need e.g. -fr-be, -fr-ca, or something later? I'm not sure, in fact. For the moment, those dictionnaries do not exist, and I was wondering if it would even make sense to have more than one in French. Why do de-de, de-at, and de-ch exist? Is there so many differences among the words used in any of those countries? Isn't there a common, official, dictionnary available for German? There is; there are some additions in -at in comparison to -de and de_CH is a extra dictionary, don't ask me why :) Ok, I'll make a single-fr version because I do not know currently of any other version of a french dictionary. Regards, Rene
OOo spellcheck packaging guide
Rene pointed me to: http://cvs.debian.org/*checkout*/guides/spellcheck-packaging/ooo-spellcheck-pkg-guide.ps?rev=1.1cvsroot=debian-openofficecontent-type=application/postscript The current version is 0.4. I don't know who's in charge of this document, but I have some remarks about it: - the title should be The OpenOffice.org spellcheck packaging guide for Debian, because it applies only to Debian - in the first paragraph, I read This documents purpose, but should read This document's purpose - at the end of the first paragraph: its varius Sub-Policies shoud read its various sub-Policies - 1.1: All package - All packages or Every package - 1.3: We want people which - We want people who - 1.3: avaiable - available - 1.3: The follwing things - The following things - 2: More specfifc relations - More specific relations - 2: We now have to handle to - We now have to handle two - ... There are even more, like in 2, Case 1: Portguese. I guess the English spellchecker was not activated when this document has been written :-)
Re: French spellchecker package
Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, Jerome Warnier wrote: 2) The second and the first from the bottom name Chris. Is that right or an error? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. There was something like blah (12345-3) ... * foo bar baz blah (12345-2) ... * foo2 blah (12345-1) * foo3 [1] or only [EMAIL PROTECTED], not sure... And how should I do it? I didn't do the package from the beginning, I just adapted it... But maybe should I put who made this version of the package really available, in this case it should be me? You took my package and did the first revision of my package for yours right? The you have to be in the line above the entries. What I wonder is why Chris is entitled there? Has Chris done some modifications on -fr himself? I guess he did so before uploading on the unofficial mirrors. And I took those back as starting point to do the last version. Chris? Some clarification here? Regards, Rene
Bug report: GNOME menus
Hello all, I'm using GNOME (2.2) on Woody but this bug report should be applicable to all versions. It's been a certain time since I wondered why OOo still appears in the Others submenu. I decided to finaly take a look at it. For me, OOo should appear in the Office submenu. I found that package openoffice.org contains some files in /usr/share/gnome/apps/net, while they should definitely belong to /usr/share/gnome/apps/Applications, at least for the not utilites ones (i.e. spadmin). I suggest to give them the name of the script used to launch them, instead of their current one (ex: use /usr/share/gnome/apps/Applications/oowriter.desktop instead of /usr/share/gnome/apps/net/textdoc.desktop. Moreover, if I take a look at the textdoc.desktop file I can see some major flaws in it (I may be wrong): - MimeType= x should be separated by ; and not spaces - I don't understand or see any other lines Version=xxx in *any* other package - there should be a line Categories=Application;Office;xxx at the end, where xxx should be any of WordProcessor, Presentation, Spreadsheet, ... There is no need to update-menus afterwards, GNOME takes them immediately into account. These should be a good start for a far better GNOME (1.4 or 2.x) integration. Regards
Re: OO 1.0.2 backported to woody
Adrian Bunk wrote: FYI: I've backported OpenOffice.org 1.0.2 to woody and added these packages to a larger collection of packages I do maintain [1]. I've run into a problem because of this. I want to use the official packages for Woody instead of yours. But revision number make my apt-get prefer your version of openoffice.org-bin (and only this one) instead. Could you do something so that it doesn't occur any more? Notes regarding these packages: - they are compiled using a backported gcc 3.2.1 - as a workaround for the problem with the same file in several packages each openoffice.org-l10n package conflict with all other openoffice.org-l10n packages Why don't you submit this to this mailing-list instead? These packages are only lightly tested, any comments are welcome. Thanks for your good work with packaging OO! Adrian BTW: Please Cc me on replies. [1] http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/
Will a 1.0.2 for Woody be available soon?
Will a 1.0.2 for Woody be available soon? BTW, I think the // building is not yet solved in this release. Am I wrong?
Bug#177322: openoffice.org: Up to date French spelling package ?
Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: Package: openoffice.org Version: 1.0.1-7 Severity: wishlist The current French language package has no unstable spellchecker available through Debian. I found and installed the original port from the German group which has ported OpenOffice.org (my sources.list has deb http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.vpn-junkies.de/openoffice/ unstable main contrib). But I feel this solution inadequate : said package is outdated and incomplete (to hyphenator). As far as I can tell, the official French dictionaries are up to date and released under GPL, and thus can be distributed on Debian. Would it be possible to integrate them in unstable ? I'm sorry, I'm in charge of that, but I need to work a little bit on it. Would you be interested, and capable, in helping? Sincerely, E. Charpentier
Re: woody backport and build dependencies
Chris Halls wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Gerhard Tonn wrote: BTW., what's about the debhelper build dependeny? It's also not satisfied when building in a woody environment. dh_install on Woody is buggy. There are 4.0.2.openoffice packages in the Woody section of the openoffice mirrors (or ~halls/openoffice/files-woody on gluck). Why not submit your version of debhelper for woody-proposed-updates if it is really buggy? Chris
Re: Building the packages for Woody (1.0.1-6)
Time to file an issue. http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9879 Seems they already closed the bug. Chris
Re: Building the packages for Woody (1.0.1-6)
Jerome Warnier wrote: Jerome Warnier wrote: Chris Halls wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:56:26PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote: Any plans to backport to Woody? Of course, but the word 'unstable' is carefully chosen.. I will only think about doing a backport once the dust settles, and that will probably be after I am reasonably happy that no new problems have arisen and have made an upload to unstable. This version brings a lot of bug corrections that affect also Woody. I now have machines with enough disk space and power to compile it myself, but this version is not buildable as such. I'm trying to do it myself, but I run into some (small) problems: - why is a newer debhelper version needed? (is it really needed?) - do we really have to backport g++-3.2 to Woody, or is there another solution? Actually, it is more buildable than the previous version, because the stlport problems have gone. It is best to build with gcc 3.0 so that you do not need to backport 3.2. Here is a quick guide: - Install the debhelper from here: http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.vpn-junkies.de/openoffice/testing/ It is needed because the version of dh_install in Woody has a bug. This package backports the 2 line change that is needed to fix the problem. - Put this patch into debian/patches: http://cvs.debian.org/*checkout*/oo-deb/debian/patches/Attic/006_exception_sprecs.diff?rev=1.3cvsroot=debian-openofficehideattic=0 - Edit debian/control and change 'g++-3.2' to 'g++-3.0' - Edit debian/scripts/vars.i386 and change 'GCC3VER=3.2' to 'GCC3VER=3.0' - Build :) Done all that. Done all this, but I still end up with different problems: The first one is a permission denied on excvpe for java_detect.sh. How is this, I still have this problem. It is just this script not being executable, I fixed it by hand (chmod +x) after interrupting the build process. The second one is that it asks for a strange question. Here you have the log: * * * Setting up the build environment variables.* * * $COMPATH=NO_COMPATH $_gcc_include_path=/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.0.4/include $_gxx_include_path=NO_GXX_INCLUDE $JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/j2se/1.3 $TCSH=/usr/bin $PERL=/usr/bin $x_libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib $x_includes=/usr/X11R6/include $_LOCAL_SOLENV=DEFAULT $_LOCAL_SOLVER=DEFAULT $upd=641 $CYGWIN=NO_CYGWIN $STLPORT4=NO_STLPORT4 $enable_xprint=TRUE $with_lang=,ALL, $with_asm_home=NO_ASM_HOME $with_unzip_home=NO_UNZIP_HOME $MINGWIN32=0 $with_use_shell=tcsh $USE_GCC3=TRUE $CC=gcc-3.0 $CXX=g++-3.0 Setting up the environment for building OpenOffice. Setting platform independent values... done Setting Linux Intel specific values... done NO_GXX_INCLUDE = no_gxx_include, NO_GXX_INCLUDE = argv(2) Please enter the g++ include path (e.g. /usr/include/g++-3): On my system, I happen to have a /usr/include/g++-3 and a /usr/include/g++-v3 directories. Which one should I choose? Why isn't that automated? I still have this problem too. Where does it come from? Is it Woody-related? This time, I tried with gcc-3.0 and ccache. Is it possible to build in parallel now? Is there still problems with the build process? It would go *really* faster in my case, because I could use a lot of machines in // (maybe 20!). So far it did not finish, but those bugs are still there. I'll let you know tomorrow. There may be new problems - I haven't tested them yet - but that should solve most build problems. Here you have some more to keep you busy ;-) Chris One more problem, not related to previous ones. It seems the build process is looking anyway to g++ and not to g++-3.0. On Woody, it seems the package g++-3.0 doesn't provide a /usr/bin/g++. If g++-2.95 is not installed on your machine OOo doesn't build. Here you have a log of what fails: = Building project MathMLDTD = deliver -- version: 1.17.4.1 COPY: build.lst - /tmp/openoffice.org-1.0.1/build-tree/oo_1.0.1_src/solver/641/unxlngi4.pro/inc/MathMLDTD/build.lst COPY: ../math.dtd - /tmp/openoffice.org-1.0.1/build-tree/oo_1.0.1_src/solver/641/unxlngi4.pro/bin/math.dtd COPY: ../w3c_ipr_software_notice.html - /tmp/openoffice.org-1.0.1/build-tree/oo_1.0.1_src/solver/641/unxlngi4.pro/bin/w3c_ipr_software_notice.html Statistics: Files copied: 3 Files unchanged/not matching: 3 = Building project solenv = deliver -- version: 1.17.4.1 COPY: build.lst - /tmp/openoffice.org-1.0.1/build-tree/oo_1.0.1_src/solver/641/unxlngi4.pro/inc/solenv/build.lst Statistics: Files copied: 1 Files unchanged/not matching: 1 = Building project stlport = /tmp/openoffice.org-1.0.1
Re: Building the packages for Woody (1.0.1-6)
Jerome Warnier wrote: Chris Halls wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:56:26PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote: Any plans to backport to Woody? Of course, but the word 'unstable' is carefully chosen.. I will only think about doing a backport once the dust settles, and that will probably be after I am reasonably happy that no new problems have arisen and have made an upload to unstable. This version brings a lot of bug corrections that affect also Woody. I now have machines with enough disk space and power to compile it myself, but this version is not buildable as such. I'm trying to do it myself, but I run into some (small) problems: - why is a newer debhelper version needed? (is it really needed?) - do we really have to backport g++-3.2 to Woody, or is there another solution? Actually, it is more buildable than the previous version, because the stlport problems have gone. It is best to build with gcc 3.0 so that you do not need to backport 3.2. Here is a quick guide: - Install the debhelper from here: http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.vpn-junkies.de/openoffice/testing/ It is needed because the version of dh_install in Woody has a bug. This package backports the 2 line change that is needed to fix the problem. - Put this patch into debian/patches: http://cvs.debian.org/*checkout*/oo-deb/debian/patches/Attic/006_exception_sprecs.diff?rev=1.3cvsroot=debian-openofficehideattic=0 - Edit debian/control and change 'g++-3.2' to 'g++-3.0' - Edit debian/scripts/vars.i386 and change 'GCC3VER=3.2' to 'GCC3VER=3.0' - Build :) Done all that. Done all this, but I still end up with different problems: The first one is a permission denied on excvpe for java_detect.sh. How is this, I still have this problem. It is just this script not being executable, I fixed it by hand (chmod +x) after interrupting the build process. The second one is that it asks for a strange question. Here you have the log: * * * Setting up the build environment variables.* * * $COMPATH=NO_COMPATH $_gcc_include_path=/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.0.4/include $_gxx_include_path=NO_GXX_INCLUDE $JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/j2se/1.3 $TCSH=/usr/bin $PERL=/usr/bin $x_libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib $x_includes=/usr/X11R6/include $_LOCAL_SOLENV=DEFAULT $_LOCAL_SOLVER=DEFAULT $upd=641 $CYGWIN=NO_CYGWIN $STLPORT4=NO_STLPORT4 $enable_xprint=TRUE $with_lang=,ALL, $with_asm_home=NO_ASM_HOME $with_unzip_home=NO_UNZIP_HOME $MINGWIN32=0 $with_use_shell=tcsh $USE_GCC3=TRUE $CC=gcc-3.0 $CXX=g++-3.0 Setting up the environment for building OpenOffice. Setting platform independent values... done Setting Linux Intel specific values... done NO_GXX_INCLUDE = no_gxx_include, NO_GXX_INCLUDE = argv(2) Please enter the g++ include path (e.g. /usr/include/g++-3): On my system, I happen to have a /usr/include/g++-3 and a /usr/include/g++-v3 directories. Which one should I choose? Why isn't that automated? I still have this problem too. Where does it come from? Is it Woody-related? This time, I tried with gcc-3.0 and ccache. Is it possible to build in parallel now? Is there still problems with the build process? It would go *really* faster in my case, because I could use a lot of machines in // (maybe 20!). So far it did not finish, but those bugs are still there. I'll let you know tomorrow. There may be new problems - I haven't tested them yet - but that should solve most build problems. Here you have some more to keep you busy ;-) Chris
Re: Help files and scripting
ninewands wrote: 1. Can anyone tell me where to find the help files for OOo, or if they install with the packages, how to make them work? I've installed the woody packages on my sarge box and trying to open Help gets me a message The requested document does not exist in the database !! which leads into my second point On 22 Nov 2002 13:59:16 USCST (GMT -6) John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] took pen in hand and enscribed: I'm interested in writing an automated word-to-PostScript converter. OpenOffice is well capable of opening Word documents, and of printing to PostScript and even comes with some simple examples of doing some of this. But I cannot find a way to just tell it from the command line, without opening any X windows, to do that sort of thing. Does such a mechanism exist? I doubt there is a way to do it without opening any windows, given that the oo wrapper scripts will only accept FILENAME as a parameter, however, I am sure that there is some way to create an equivalent of Microsoft's AutoRun macro such that you could create a template that contained the macro and scripting to minimize the main window and open a file selection dialog where you would select the .doc file you wanted. The script could then print the file to a postscript file and cause oowriter to exit. Unfortunately, I have looked at all of the leading open source word processors (oowriter, abiword and KWord) and it seems NONE of them offer an option to Save As ... postscript or pdf. They will all print to postscript/pdf, but that makes using them in the way you want just as unwieldy as doing it with oowriter and it appears that neither abiword nor KWord support a macro language. With Abiword at least you wouldn't need to: it uses Wv, which are tools about converting files among different formats. As you already have command-line converters, why would you want Abiword to do that? When I can read the help files (see, point #1, above) and learn a little more about oowriter, I'd be glad to help you further if it looks like this might be feasible.
Problem building OOo
I build a Woody version of 1.0.1-5.6rc1. It still remains one problem, besides the ones I already notified: it only build help in English. Anyone any idea?
Re: Building the packages for Woody (was Re: OpenOffice.org new unstable packages available for testing)
Chris Halls wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:56:26PM +0100, Jerome Warnier wrote: Any plans to backport to Woody? Of course, but the word 'unstable' is carefully chosen.. I will only think about doing a backport once the dust settles, and that will probably be after I am reasonably happy that no new problems have arisen and have made an upload to unstable. This version brings a lot of bug corrections that affect also Woody. I now have machines with enough disk space and power to compile it myself, but this version is not buildable as such. I'm trying to do it myself, but I run into some (small) problems: - why is a newer debhelper version needed? (is it really needed?) - do we really have to backport g++-3.2 to Woody, or is there another solution? Actually, it is more buildable than the previous version, because the stlport problems have gone. It is best to build with gcc 3.0 so that you do not need to backport 3.2. Here is a quick guide: - Install the debhelper from here: http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.vpn-junkies.de/openoffice/testing/ It is needed because the version of dh_install in Woody has a bug. This package backports the 2 line change that is needed to fix the problem. - Put this patch into debian/patches: http://cvs.debian.org/*checkout*/oo-deb/debian/patches/Attic/006_exception_sprecs.diff?rev=1.3cvsroot=debian-openofficehideattic=0 - Edit debian/control and change 'g++-3.2' to 'g++-3.0' - Edit debian/scripts/vars.i386 and change 'GCC3VER=3.2' to 'GCC3VER=3.0' - Build :) Done all this, but I still end up with different problems: The first one is a permission denied on excvpe for java_detect.sh. The second one is that it asks for a strange question. Here you have the log: * * * Setting up the build environment variables.* * * $COMPATH=NO_COMPATH $_gcc_include_path=/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.0.4/include $_gxx_include_path=NO_GXX_INCLUDE $JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/j2se/1.3 $TCSH=/usr/bin $PERL=/usr/bin $x_libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib $x_includes=/usr/X11R6/include $_LOCAL_SOLENV=DEFAULT $_LOCAL_SOLVER=DEFAULT $upd=641 $CYGWIN=NO_CYGWIN $STLPORT4=NO_STLPORT4 $enable_xprint=TRUE $with_lang=,ALL, $with_asm_home=NO_ASM_HOME $with_unzip_home=NO_UNZIP_HOME $MINGWIN32=0 $with_use_shell=tcsh $USE_GCC3=TRUE $CC=gcc-3.0 $CXX=g++-3.0 Setting up the environment for building OpenOffice. Setting platform independent values... done Setting Linux Intel specific values... done NO_GXX_INCLUDE = no_gxx_include, NO_GXX_INCLUDE = argv(2) Please enter the g++ include path (e.g. /usr/include/g++-3): On my system, I happen to have a /usr/include/g++-3 and a /usr/include/g++-v3 directories. Which one should I choose? Why isn't that automated? There may be new problems - I haven't tested them yet - but that should solve most build problems. Here you have some more to keep you busy ;-) Chris
Re: OpenOffice.org new unstable packages available for testing
Chris Halls wrote: Prerelease packages for OpenOffice.org are now available from the unstable section of our mirrors (http://www.linux-debian.de/openoffice/mirrors.html). Please let us know if you have any problems with this version other than the problems already known in the BTS. Changelog for this release: openoffice.org (1.0.1-5.6rc1) unstable; urgency=low * fixed Dependencies (closes: #162240) * changed Depends: from openoffice.org-l10n-* to openoffice.org to Recommends: (closes: #165036) * Remove -fno-rtti compiler flag for PPC * In debian/rules use dpkg-architecture to set $ARCH. * Set maintainer to debian-openoffice mailing list * Clean up Build-Dependencies (closes: #162428) * Revert back to internal libstlport until after the gcc transition. (029_stlport_stolen_from_OO642C, 030_stlport_gcc32_includes) * Fix window titles (030_WM_CLASS_property from Mandrake) * Remove obsolete patches: 004_zipdep_not_found, 011_link_against_stlport_gcc_3.1) * Revert back to compiling i386 with -mcpu=pentiumpro, since it will make OOo run faster on the majority of machines (P5 generation is too slow for OOo, but it will still work fine if someone really wants to run it). * Fix naming of X: s/XWindows/X Window/ (028_fix_x_naming) * Remove diversion of bug submissions for subpackages to openoffice.org, now that they are no longer unknown to the BTS. * Clean up debian/rules a little * Include regcomp binary * Title of About box is translated now (closes: #162984) * Work around dpkg warning 'i386-none not found in mapping table' * Debian specific files (man pages, wrapper script, ...) split out to separate source package (openoffice.org-debian-files) * Add patch from Mandrake to fallback to English help if translated help is not available, thanks to Gwenole Beauchesne. 028_help_fallback_en.diff (closes: #156044) * Fix problem in clean rule when using pbuilder, thanks to Nicolas Boos * Add pre/post-install/rm hooks into openoffice.org-debian-files * Improve detection of JDK path openoffice.org-debian-files (1.0.1-5+6rc1) unstable; urgency=low * Initial Release. * chamged spadmin to oopadmin in README (thanks to Ken Shaw) * New ways to run OOo -- oohelp and oomaster * Support $LC_ALL for user interface language * update README.Debian with more information about common problems, including the msttcorefonts upgrade, user interface problems and common reasons that OOo crashes (closes: #163407) * Update TODO * The Wrapper script and manpage now mentions README.Debian * added README.japanese which describes how to use japanese fonts (thanks to Masatoshi Iwasaki) If no problems are found with these packages we will upload to unstable. Thanks, Chris Halls Debian OpenOffice.org team Any plans to backport to Woody? This version brings a lot of bug corrections that affect also Woody. I now have machines with enough disk space and power to compile it myself, but this version is not buildable as such. I'm trying to do it myself, but I run into some (small) problems: - why is a newer debhelper version needed? (is it really needed?) - do we really have to backport g++-3.2 to Woody, or is there another solution? Thanks, and good work
Re: OpenOffice.org new unstable packages available for testing
Kevin.Hendricks wrote: Hi, Actually you can technically use gcc 2.95.X and later with OOo under PPC Linux but I build with gcc 3.1.1 or later due to bug fixes and things that are needed. I do not recommend building with gcc 3.0.X under PPC Linux at all. But the bridge code and things still exist if someone wants to try building with gcc 2.95.4 but since neither Jan or I build with that gcc version anymore, you might run into some build difficulties that you would have to work around. You can also simply use the pre-built OOo 1.0.1 binary available directly from the OOodownload page in a section with locations for ppc links (check out penguinppc.org for example). That binary should install and work well on Debian as it does on most other PPC Linux distributions but please note it does not have Debian specific packaging changes in it. Kevin Jan already helped me a lot, but I tried, and there's one problem left: debhelper's version. Jan told me about a specific OOo version of the debhelper package, but I can't find it anywhere. I'm trying to build OOo with gcc-3.0 on Intel. Regards
Re: uk dictionary
Gaute Hvoslef Kvalnes wrote: Fredag 25. oktober 2002 21:22 skreiv Pete Osborne: Hello, I've tried using the OOodi Open Office Dictionary installer (http://ooodi.sourceforge.net/) to get a UK dictionary working. It downloads the lists and says that everything is installed OK, but when I run open office, I cannot use the UK dictionary for spellchecking. Same goes for the French dictionary. I took a look at where the files were installed and everything looks good, I can't figure this out. Is there a UK dictionary in DEB form anywhere? Have you checked the settings in Tools - Options - Language Settings - Writing Aids? Make sure MySpell is checked in the upper box, then press Edit and choose English (UK) from the list. (Should appear with an ABC icon next to it.) Then check the MySpell box here as well. Also make sure that the default language in Tools - Options - Language Settings - Languages is set to the desired language. Finally, verify that Format - Character - Font - Language is correct. (This settings lets you use multiple languages in the same document.) Having to explicitly activate the spellchecker is stupid, but that's how OOo works :( Is there a way to fix this in the package scripts? (The setting is in an XML file somewhere.) The problem is that it's user-centric, and that the xml file is based upon the current locale used. If one user change his locale from one logon to another, he will lose all these settings. Anyone has an idea on how to fix this? Regards, Gaute Hvoslef Kvalnes
Re: cvs commit to oo-debian-files/doc by haggai
Debian Openoffice CVS wrote: Repository: oo-debian-files/doc who:haggai time: Mon Oct 21 11:39:58 UTC 2002 Log Message: - Update section for contrib vs main - Update langpack section - Remove S3 info (it is now in README.Debian) - Update JDK info - Add item for broken fonts caused by removal of files - Add bison 1.50 item - Add external libs in Debian item Could you add the problem with non-free library blocking from saving HTML with included pictures (the reason for patch #905)? Files: changed:TODO Could you also add problems about parallel building?
Website: please update TODO link
Please update to: http://cvs.debian.org/oo-debian-files/doc/TODO?rev=HEADcvsroot=debian-openofficecontent-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Re: cvs commit to oo-deb/debian by rene
Debian Openoffice CVS wrote: Repository: oo-deb/debian who:rene time: Wed Oct 16 16:51:56 UTC 2002 Log Message: - split Debian specific things out - circular dependencies are bas, so -l10n- Recommends: openoffice.org Files: changed:changelog control control.in control.lang.in openoffice.org.links removed:README.Debian TODO openoffice.org.manpages openoffice.org.menu openoffice.org.mime Why has TODO to be removed?
Compiling OOo and distcc
I'm wondering if it would be really difficult to use distcc for compiling OOo, as it takes a really long time. With the help of ccache it could drastically reduce compilation time, and as such, ease the process of releasing new versions for Woody and others, ... More information on distcc: http://distcc.samba.org/
File-AutiPilot-Form... is broken
With version 1.0.1-5+woody, going through the menus File-AutiPilot-Form... leads to an error. Honestly, I don't know why this menu is for. And I'm not going to experiment it unless someone fixes this :-)
Unofficial Debian apt sources
We should add at least one of our mirror to: http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/apt-sources/ It is really easy to add one, but I don't know myself which maintener and which mirror to put in the required fields.
Unofficial Debian apt sources
We should add at least one of our mirrors to: http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/apt-sources/ It is really easy to add one, but I don't know myself which maintener and which mirror to put in the required fields.
OOo and PDF
I've tried several times to print document to files as PDF. It seems the resulting file is a PostScript file, not a PDF, but with the .pdf extension. Anyone else having the problem or already fixed it? I'm using the latest version for Woody (and on Woody). Thanks
Re: OOo and PDF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Sam, 2002-09-28 um 14.05 schrieb Jerome Warnier: I've tried several times to print document to files as PDF. It seems the resulting file is a PostScript file, not a PDF, but with the .pdf extension. Anyone else having the problem or already fixed it? I'm using the latest version for Woody (and on Woody). Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] having postscript files use: ps2pdf *.ps *.pdf The problem is that the PostScript file have .pdf extension. You cannot do this immediately, you would have first to rename the files. Furthermore, my problem is not that I don't know how to get real PDF files, but that the option in OOo is not working properly. I can do it myself, but can't manage to explain it to every single user. regards Hugo Wau
Re: OpenOffice in Woody?
Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote: Hi .. On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:42:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: Does it make sence to build OOo with newer gcc/glibc/binutils etc etc on woody or should I only use the woody packages and the newer needed debhelper? I would try to do the second, if that does not work we can try to the other possibility. But our goal is to provide a version having deps in woody; if we'll do the first we'll have to provide the new woody packages also... This was, what I thought, too ... ok! Regards Jan I got the hands on a P4 1.8GHz running Woody. I would like to help. How can I compile it as best as possible? Any instructions to get it to work asap? Should not take long to compile it on this machine.
Locales names in OOo
As you all know, the problem with OOo not keeping localization settings is now clear (at least to me) :-) It is due to OOo's strange handling of locales names. I figured out that forcing a translation in /usr/bin/openoffice from fr_FR to fr-FR solves the problem (cfr my previous e-mails about this problem). The problem is that we cannot make such a translation for every single locale name OOo and Debian support. Could someone explain why the problem happens only in that part of OOo (localisation settings), and maybe fix this? Regards
Re: OpenOffice in Woody?
Daniel Mueller wrote: Hi there, i was very happy with your openoffice packages for debian, till i updated my apt-sources today and ran into trouble with the installed OpenOffice on my Woody-Box. There are now unsatisfied dependencies (libc6, libgcc1, libstdc++5) that needs some packages from sarge/testing. But i wanted to stay with my stable box. I wanted to know if it is a big problem to release an openoffice version for the woody/stable distribution. That would be very fine and other users would be happy also. Would be nice to get a quick response. CU Daniel Müller I'm interested also, though don't have the horsepower to compile it on one of my machines. Maybe someone already did so? I used to, but with one of the first packages that appeared for 1.0.0. I don't care for PPC, I only need an i386 version. I also read there will be a problem with sid, because libstlport is no longer maintained in a recent version because of other troubles? What's the point in fact?
Re: Problem: OOo 1.0.1 not keeping setting upon restart
Jerome Warnier wrote: Jerome Warnier wrote: Chris Halls wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:11:40AM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: I then analysed and modified Linguistic.xml(.fr_FR) and Setup.xml(.fr_FR)but changes were overriden at each OOo restart (which is exactly the problem). It seems that /usr/bin/openoffice is doing this at each restart. Ah, thanks for the analysis. I would suspect something is going wrong here: # Create Linguistic.xml if don't exists if [ ! -e $LINGFILE.$OLDLOCALE ] ; then # get a default one, and change en-US to OLDLOCALE inside. I guess this is a noop, but I'm not sure sed s/en-US/$OLDLOCALE/ \ /usr/lib/openoffice/share/config/registry/instance/org/openoffice/Office/Linguistic.xml \ $LINGFILE.$OLDLOCALE fi Try adding this line below the if [ !e .. line: echo `basename $LINGFILE`.$OLDLOCALE not found Linguistic.xml.en-US not found Which of LC_ALL, LANG, or other should I provide to you? LC_ALL is empty and LANG is set to fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 and see if that is printed every time. Also, you could add a 'set -x' at the top and post the output - that way we could see how it is behaving. Chris I finally got the time to pinpoint the problem and found a way to circumvent it. The problem is the name of the locale. I saw recently that someone made a (rather ugly) patch to support the @euro in the locale name to the script (/usr/bin/openoffice). I made an uglier one to support some locale variant. In Belgium, we use (among other) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even using fr_FR doesn't solve the problem. Remembering a thread on this list a long time ago about OOo dealing only with locales names like fr-FR and not fr_FR like most other free software, I found out that forcing $LOCALE to fr-FR instead of fr_FR worked and tried again with nl-NL instead of nl_NL with the same success. My hack basicly takes the first two chars of the string $LANG and if fr puts fr-FR in $LOCALE, and does the same for nl with nl-NL. And it works successfully. I don't know, though, if this could be extended to other locales. I think de would not work like this due to variants to locales. Regards
Help in French
I would like to have help available in French ASAP. How can I do? Do I have to build it myself? How so?
Re: dmake in debian
My main reason for stalling was because of the insecure use of mktmp. I made a wrapper script that refuses to run dmake if it is started in a group or world writable directory. Does that work for you? Talking about mktmp: I noticed that /usr/bin/openoffice still contains use of a temporary file not using mktemp nor tempfile. May I submit a patch? What do you think of it? Which one to use, mktemp or tempfile? I would rather use tempfile (both are contained in package debianutils, so it doesn't really matter). Regards
Re: web-server: install/build instructions outdated
Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote: Hi Jerome .. On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:54:14PM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: The page is pretty outdated, even if I could see that the page had been modified on 10/08/2002. http://www.linux-debian.de/openoffice/install_build_howto.html Yes youre right! I had less time in the last weeks, since my employer went down and I fightened for a job. But all went well and I will start up my work on monday .. There is much to do on this side .. :) But thnx for your attantion. Regards Jan By the way, the link to the todo list still points, for whatever reason, to TODO's CVS version 1.13 (current is 1.19). There must be a way to make it point to the latest version, or pointing to CVS is no use, right? Regards
Re: cvs commit to oo-deb/debian/patches by haggai
Debian Openoffice CVS wrote: Repository: oo-deb/debian/patches who:haggai time: Thu Aug 15 13:50:45 UTC 2002 Log Message: * Remove non-free LZW compression code: Save to html no longer works if there are graphics in the document. 905_remove_lzwc.diff and file removed from source tarball. Is there a planned replacement? * add introduction with summary of the changes between these packages and upstream * Add upstream README to docs directory and update copyright * Describe the build system in more detail in debian/README Files: added: 905_remove_lzwc.diff
Quick-starter: ooqstart-gnome
I suggest for all of you often using OpenOffice.org to take a look at package ooqstart-gnome in unstable. OOo now launches in seconds instead of minutes on low-end machines (PII 350MHz + 128 MB RAM).
web-server: install/build instructions outdated
The page is pretty outdated, even if I could see that the page had been modified on 10/08/2002. http://www.linux-debian.de/openoffice/install_build_howto.html
Re: Problem: OOo 1.0.1 not keeping setting upon restart
Chris Halls wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:11:40AM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: I then analysed and modified Linguistic.xml(.fr_FR) and Setup.xml(.fr_FR)but changes were overriden at each OOo restart (which is exactly the problem). It seems that /usr/bin/openoffice is doing this at each restart. Ah, thanks for the analysis. I would suspect something is going wrong here: # Create Linguistic.xml if don't exists if [ ! -e $LINGFILE.$OLDLOCALE ] ; then # get a default one, and change en-US to OLDLOCALE inside. I guess this is a noop, but I'm not sure sed s/en-US/$OLDLOCALE/ \ /usr/lib/openoffice/share/config/registry/instance/org/openoffice/Office/Linguistic.xml \ $LINGFILE.$OLDLOCALE fi Try adding this line below the if [ !e .. line: echo `basename $LINGFILE`.$OLDLOCALE not found Linguistic.xml.en-US not found Which of LC_ALL, LANG, or other should I provide to you? and see if that is printed every time. Also, you could add a 'set -x' at the top and post the output - that way we could see how it is behaving. Chris
Re: Problem: OOo 1.0.1 not keeping setting upon restart
Jerome Warnier wrote: Chris Halls wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:11:40AM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: I then analysed and modified Linguistic.xml(.fr_FR) and Setup.xml(.fr_FR)but changes were overriden at each OOo restart (which is exactly the problem). It seems that /usr/bin/openoffice is doing this at each restart. Ah, thanks for the analysis. I would suspect something is going wrong here: # Create Linguistic.xml if don't exists if [ ! -e $LINGFILE.$OLDLOCALE ] ; then # get a default one, and change en-US to OLDLOCALE inside. I guess this is a noop, but I'm not sure sed s/en-US/$OLDLOCALE/ \ /usr/lib/openoffice/share/config/registry/instance/org/openoffice/Office/Linguistic.xml \ $LINGFILE.$OLDLOCALE fi Try adding this line below the if [ !e .. line: echo `basename $LINGFILE`.$OLDLOCALE not found Linguistic.xml.en-US not found Which of LC_ALL, LANG, or other should I provide to you? LC_ALL is empty and LANG is set to fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 and see if that is printed every time. Also, you could add a 'set -x' at the top and post the output - that way we could see how it is behaving. Chris
Re: Problem: OOo 1.0.1 not keeping setting upon restart
Chris Halls wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: It seems my OOo 1.0.1 on i386 is not keeping locale settings upon restart. It seems to happen randomly, though I think 1.0.0 did not have this problem. I don't think anything has changed. The change is performed in /usr/bin/openoffice - add a 'set -x' to the top so you can see which statements are executed in the script. Chris I did extensive tests today and got to the conclusion that the problem is in /usr/bin/openoffice. Launching directly /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice keeps localization settings right. I first suspected the NFS-homes to be the problem, but it turned out that some machines were working fine anyway. Then, I suspected the user's .openoffice configuration directory. I copied a working one to replace a non-working profile. Nothing changed. I then suspected the current LC_ALL and LANG env variables, but changing alternatively to fr_FR didn't make it either. I then analysed and modified Linguistic.xml(.fr_FR) and Setup.xml(.fr_FR)but changes were overriden at each OOo restart (which is exactly the problem). It seems that /usr/bin/openoffice is doing this at each restart. I will try tomorrow to look out where it is happening, and maybe why. If anyone else can do the same and keep me informed, I would be very pleased. Thanks
Problem: OOo 1.0.1 not keeping setting upon restart
It seems my OOo 1.0.1 on i386 is not keeping locale settings upon restart. It seems to happen randomly, though I think 1.0.0 did not have this problem. How could I narrow the problem? Any thoughts? Thanks
Splitting window in multiple documents
I have been asked today how to split window between sub-windows in OOo? It would be usefull for translations, for example. Thanks
Re: ooo-l10n-ar conflicts with ooo-l10n-en
Chris Halls wrote: On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:01:55AM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: Using openoffice.org (1.0.1-4), and trying to install openoffice.org-l10n-ar (1.0.1-1). It seems that openoffice.org-l10n-ar conflicts with openoffice.org-l10n-en. File /usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1033.dat belongs to both packages, and dpkg refuses to overwrite it. Hmmm... openoffice.org-l10n-ar_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7612 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1033.dat openoffice.org-l10n-da_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 32768 2000-09-19 11:03:05 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1030.dat openoffice.org-l10n-de_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 2766 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1031.dat openoffice.org-l10n-el_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7612 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1033.dat openoffice.org-l10n-en_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7612 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1033.dat openoffice.org-l10n-es_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 3989 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1034.dat openoffice.org-l10n-fr_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 3850 2001-05-10 17:07:31 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1036.dat openoffice.org-l10n-it_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 1686 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1040.dat openoffice.org-l10n-ja_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7605 2001-06-05 16:23:18 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1041.dat openoffice.org-l10n-ko_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7605 2001-06-05 16:23:19 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1042.dat openoffice.org-l10n-nl_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 146432 2000-09-19 11:03:05 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1043.dat openoffice.org-l10n-pl_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7680 2000-09-19 11:03:06 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1045.dat openoffice.org-l10n-pt_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 146432 2000-09-19 11:03:06 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor2070.dat openoffice.org-l10n-ru_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 8704 2000-09-19 11:03:06 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1049.dat openoffice.org-l10n-sv_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 2288 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1053.dat openoffice.org-l10n-tr_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7612 2001-12-04 12:58:54 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1033.dat openoffice.org-l10n-zh-cn_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7605 2001-06-05 16:23:14 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor2052.dat openoffice.org-l10n-zh-tw_1.0.1-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- root/root 7605 2001-06-05 16:23:16 ./usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1028.dat It seems that several languages use the English file :-/ And no-one noticed before? Do you see a way to resolve this?
keeping it open
My users seem to have a terrible problem (for them) with OOo. When they close the last open document in OOo, it closes also OOo, which forces them to reload it a lot of times in one day. As it takes a rather long time, they are bothered. Does anyone know how to keep it open, unless explicitely told so by closing OOo itself?
Dictionaries: TODO
I would like to change the way the *source* package is currently managed but I'm not sure what it would involve, or if it is even possible. - make it less language-dependent: - having only one source package for all languages - permits to make a shared TODO file - permits unified bug reporting (and fixing) - eases modifications (ex: putting dictionaries in a shared directory for other packages as well (Mozilla)) - autogenerate binary packages following zipfiles put in the right directory and using zipfile as upstream package and adding a diff-file for Debian package - include README files from upstream zipfiles as doc Rene, tell me what you think about this.
Re: Dictionaries: TODO
What the issue with the OOO - Mozilla is, I would think about doing packages installing the dictionaries into /usr/share/myspell (as Chris proposed alreday). I would preferably use /usr/share/myspell/dict, just in case some day a myspell package appears and needs /usr/share/myspell. The problem I see is the linking to the places OOo wants it to have. We can link from /usr/lib/openoffice/. to the apprpriate files in /usr/share/myspell. When we do this in the OOo package we'll have much dead links around. We could not do it in the myspell package because the myspell package should then work if mozilla but not OOo is installed. Mozillas related packages have to have to handle this in an equal way. Why make so many links? We could just patch OOo to find those files where we tell him so. It may be that I am thinking worse now and there is an easy solution that I did not see now, because at the moment I have much to do and though just a little moment about the issue... I will try to do my best and keep you informed. Regards, Rene
ooo-l10n-ar conflicts with ooo-l10n-en
Using openoffice.org (1.0.1-4), and trying to install openoffice.org-l10n-ar (1.0.1-1). It seems that openoffice.org-l10n-ar conflicts with openoffice.org-l10n-en. File /usr/lib/openoffice/share/autocorr/acor1033.dat belongs to both packages, and dpkg refuses to overwrite it. Regards
Re: Dictionaries
Kevin B. Hendricks wrote: Hi, I was away on vaction and just saw this. AFAIK Mozilla is using its version of MySpell which is dictionary compatible with the OOo ones so you might want to name them something or organize them somehow so that they are useful for Mozilla users too. Do you have more info? I found http://spellchecker.mozdev.org, but it doesn't say much. I checked no Debian package is available for now either. Maybe we should put dictionnaries completely outside of OpenOffice? In a shared location, with links if needed. Thanks Hope this helps, Kevin On July 26, 2002 10:04, Chris Halls wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 02:50:50PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: Anyways, how do you think should this work? OK, for the benefit of those on the list we just thrashed this out on IRC. We'd like to do the following: * openoffice.org Suggests: openoffice.org-spellcheck * Each language pack Suggests: openoffice.org-spellcheck-lang where lang is de, fr, en etc.. * Where this is only one dictionary for a language (-fr?), that will be called openoffice.org-spellcheck-lang and provide -spellcheck * Where there are several dictionaries, they will be called e.g. -de-de and -de-ch, and each will provide -spellcheck-de and -spellcheck * The special case of -de-de also providing the Austrian dictionary will be openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-de Provides: -spellcheck-de-at. Phew! Why so complicated? We want to support the following scenarios: - A user installs openoffice.org and is looking for dictionaries, so all dicts Provides: -spellcheck. - A user installs a language pack, so we Suggests: dictionaries for that language and the dictionaries use Provides: -spellcheck-lang - A user knows exactly which language to install and tries to install using the dictionary name: e.g. apt-get openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-at. Jerome, how does that sound to you for French? Chris
Re: Gnome 2.0/Nautilius OO integration solved!!!
On Sun, 2002-07-28 at 20:26, Jack Howarth wrote: Chris, Well you do realize that the openoffice document types are already defined in gnome-mime-data 2.0.0-1. The entries are... /usr/share/application-registry/gnome-vfs.applications openoffice command=ooffice name=OpenOffice.org can_open_multiple_files=true expects_uris=false requires_terminal=false mime_types=text/abiword,application/x-abiword,application/vnd.ms-excel,application/rtf,application/msword,application/vnd.ms-powerpoint,application/vnd.stardivision.calc,application/vnd.stardivision.chart,application/vnd.stardivision.draw,application/vnd and in /usr/share/mime-info/gnome-vfs.keys and as well as /usr/share/mime-info/gnome-vfs.mime. So unless you want to force upstream to change gnome-mime-data or have Takuo KITAME constantly patch gnome-mime-data, we should just add the symlink. If not we should submit a patch to at least Takuo KITAME asking him to change the command name from ooffice to openoffice. I sincerely doubt upstream will accept the patch as the openoffice command name is unique to debian's packaging as far as I know. On the other side, no other distribution I know of uses oofice as the name of the wrapper. By the way, shouldn't the name be openoffice.org instead of openoffice? Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#150738: openoffice.org: The help system does not appear to function
This bug is closed, but shouldn't. I have new info: It works when in English (at least) but for French, it doesn't. Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux .x.be 2.4.18-686 #1 Sun Apr 14 11:32:47 EST 2002 i686Locale: LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1, LC_CTYPE= Versions of packages openoffice.org depends on: ii openoffice.org-bin1.0.1-3openoffice.org office suite binary ii openoffice.org-l10n-en1.0.1-1english_us files for openoffice.or ii openoffice.org-l10n-en [openo 1.0.1-1english_us files for openoffice.or ii openoffice.org-l10n-fr [openo 1.0.1-1french files for openoffice.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dictionaries
Chris Halls wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 02:50:50PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: Anyways, how do you think should this work? OK, for the benefit of those on the list we just thrashed this out on IRC. We'd like to do the following: * openoffice.org Suggests: openoffice.org-spellcheck * Each language pack Suggests: openoffice.org-spellcheck-lang where lang is de, fr, en etc.. * Where this is only one dictionary for a language (-fr?), that will be called openoffice.org-spellcheck-lang and provide -spellcheck What about later new dictionnaries? I wonder if someday we won't have to deal with a fr-be. * Where there are several dictionaries, they will be called e.g. -de-de and -de-ch, and each will provide -spellcheck-de and -spellcheck * The special case of -de-de also providing the Austrian dictionary will be openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-de Provides: -spellcheck-de-at. Phew! Why so complicated? We want to support the following scenarios: - A user installs openoffice.org and is looking for dictionaries, so all dicts Provides: -spellcheck. - A user installs a language pack, so we Suggests: dictionaries for that language and the dictionaries use Provides: -spellcheck-lang - A user knows exactly which language to install and tries to install using the dictionary name: e.g. apt-get openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-at. Jerome, how does that sound to you for French? Except the point I commented, yes. Chris My package is ready, I wait for definitive answer to put fr-fr or simply fr, and for someone to tell me to whom to send or upload. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
French spellcheck
I made a package for french spellchecker based on the de-de one (with almost no changes). Where should I put it, or who would I have to send it to? It may require a little review (overall because my name is in the packager's fields ;-), but is working, and tested with version 1.0.1-1. I'm ready to help anyone trying to make a more robust and unified system among localisations. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
close bug #154032
Some bugs could be closed in the BTS, like #154032. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Build-depends on html2text
I put an eye on debian/rules (for version 1.0.1-1) and found that it was using html2text without Build-depending on it. Just my 2 cents... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dictionaries
Tom Badran wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok, im trying to make a debian package for the en_gb dictionary. Could someone please send me a tarball of the source for one of the openoffice.org-l10n-* packages so i can do this. I cant seem to find the source package on the web Tom It is part of the whole debian package's source. I guess you'll have to apt-get source openoffice.org. BTW, could someone explain how to make those dictionnary packages? I'm also interested in making one for French. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dictionaries
I had packaged the de_DE, de_AT and de_CH dictionaries. You can get the source package (which ysou can get as start for your own one) with apt-get source openoffice.org-spellcheck-de I just tried to compile this one now, and it doesn't work, because I'm not root. Is it *really* needed to be root? fakeroot should be used to bypass this problem. Regards, Rene Here is the errorlog: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-get -b source openoffice.org-spellcheck-de Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Need to get 704kB of source archives. Skipping unpack of already unpacked source in openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-20020505 dpkg-buildpackage: source package is openoffice.org-spellcheck-de dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 20020505-4 dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer is Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture is i386 debian/rules clean dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_testroot: You must run this as root (or use fakeroot). make: *** [clean] Error 1 Build command 'cd openoffice.org-spellcheck-de-20020505 dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc' failed. E: Child process failed Regards, Jérôme Warnier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [announce] 1.0.1-1 for i386 is out
openoffice.org (1.0.1-1) experimental; urgency=low * New upstream version + upgrade of the mozilla integration from 0.9.5 to 1.0 + several fixes to font handling code + improved portability + improvements to handling of locales + and numerous other minor bugfixes Where could we find details about those particuliar fixes/improvements? I understand those are upstream changes, am I right? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Shared dictionnaries
Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi Jerome, Jerome Warnier wrote: Were are we concerning this point? Is it still needed to copy in each ~/.openoffice.org/user/wordbook a copy of all dictionnaries used, and update the list file, or is it No. It is not needed anymore Great news. There are not yet automated packages? Can I help in any way? already using /usr/lib/openoffice/user/wordbook ? /usr/lib/openoffice/share/ooo/dicts is the right location for that. That path is incorrect, the right one is: /usr/lib/openoffice/share/dict/ooo/ Rene (Maintainer of openoffice.org-spellcheck-de, not on any ftp yet) When will it be available? Many thanks, I was using OOdict as an installer, but it only works for one user at a time. By the way, may I delete the already-existing ~/.openoffice.org/user/wordbook/* files safely, or is there anything special to do before? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bugs in postinst and postrm scripts
- there seem to be bugs in postinst and postrm: I have all the code written twice for dh_install* - it seems to me that openoffice.org should depend on, or recommend, or maybe suggest packages menu and mime-support. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dictionnaries
I also played around with dictionnaries on OpenOffice.org today. It seems for now that dictionnaries *must* be in OOHOME/user/wordbook. It may change in a future upstream release. Though, we have a magnificent /usr/lib/openoffice/user/wordbook. Why not put dictionnaries in -l10n-* packages and update the file there (dictionnaries.lst or so) to match that? We could then just take them from there with /usr/bin/openoffice and put them in the right place, in the case of a first-time user. Martin? What about this? PS: In case someone wants it to work immediately, there's a great tool that does the job at: http://ooodi.sourceforge.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: oo doesn't start
Martin Quinson wrote: Remove your /usr/bin/openoffice wrapper, and use the one found at the following address in place: http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~mquinson/debian/openoffice This version (as for right now) misses à $@ on the last line. You call soffice losing any parameters passed on the command-line, like a private:factory/swriter. It should solve your problems. Bye, Mt. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNOME file-types association problems
I would like to associate the MS Word and MS Excel documents (*.doc, *.xls) to OpenOffice.org 1.0 on Debian Woody using your -4 release. I already tried some things, but they are all failing (and for most, silently). I got to launch OpenOffice.org 1.0 when clicking in Nautilus on .xls documents, but it opens Writer, and not Calc, and doesn't open the document itself. After that (changing the association in GNOME Control-center), it loses its config, and I don't know why. I also noticed that the MS Powerpoint association is done and works, but couldn't manage to find out from where that came (/etc/mime.types, I suppose). Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Announce] 1.0.0-4 .debs for i386
Paul Scott wrote: Chris Halls wrote: Finally, they are out! The main highlight of these packages is a split, and additional user interface language support. Dictionaries are not yet included. Many thanks to Martin Quinson for his language contributions, and John Cooper for the menu entries. There will not be a -4 for the powerpc architecture, because Jan is in the middle of a transition to gcc 3.1. The .debs are up on mx1.ru and ftp.vpn-junkies.de. Not all lanugages have finished uploading yet (there are 18!), and the French and Norwegian mirrors will sync within 24 hours. List of mirrors: Here's what I get after doing apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade joy:/home/paul# apt-get install openoffice.org Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: openoffice.org: Depends: libgcc1 (= 1:3.1) but 1:3.0.4-7 is to be installed It's a Woody-related problem. I don't quite understand why there's such a strong dependency on GCC3.1. I understand quite well that it may fixes issues on PowerPC (or allow it to work), but that isn't enough for me to render it uninstallable on Woody even on i386. Paul Scott -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Announce] 1.0.0-4 .debs for i386
Chris Halls wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:54:00AM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: openoffice.org: Depends: libgcc1 (= 1:3.1) but 1:3.0.4-7 is to be installed Mmm, this is the version of libgcc1 currently in sid. I don't have the disk space to do a completely seperate build using pure-woody at the moment, but installing that one package from sid is enough. Almost impossible to use apt-get on Debian is like being in a jail... (in fact, we could use apt_preferences to circumvent this). Do you want us to provide a Woody station for you to compile on it? Sorry, but I don't have a quite powerful pc available myself, otherwise I would have done it without hesitation. Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Announce] 1.0.0-4 .debs for i386
Paul Scott wrote: Chris Halls wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:54:00AM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: openoffice.org: Depends: libgcc1 (= 1:3.1) but 1:3.0.4-7 is to be installed Mmm, this is the version of libgcc1 currently in sid. I don't have the disk space to do a completely seperate build using pure-woody at the moment, but installing that one package from sid is enough. Thanks for the quick response. I have a mixed woody/sid system with /etc/apt/preferences. I guess I will have to learn more about getting what I want with this. apt-get install libgcc1 says I have the latest version. You must specify which version you want with: apt-get install libgcc1/unstable I'll see what I can do. Thanks again, Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: yet another version of /usr/bin/openoffice
Martin Quinson wrote: ok, Changes: - don't add brutally Linguistic.xml, I copy it over. - comment a bit the perl statement - all variables upercase (for readability) - no need of .openoffice/lang.debian anymore I think this time is the right one. We now need need the resources extra deb packages. How did you do or where did you find it? Bye, Mt. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: yet another version of /usr/bin/openoffice
Martin Quinson wrote: On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:06:55PM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote: Martin Quinson wrote: ok, Changes: - don't add brutally Linguistic.xml, I copy it over. - comment a bit the perl statement - all variables upercase (for readability) - no need of .openoffice/lang.debian anymore I think this time is the right one. We now need need the resources extra deb packages. How did you do or where did you find it? Dunno yet ;) Could you send also your latest modifs to /usr/bin/openoffice? Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tcsh dependency
Does anyone know why tcsh is needed to build OOo and if it is really needed? Does the build-depend contain this? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Splitting the package.
John M Cooper wrote: Its huge! over 60 Mb for each platform! We have already put 130Mb plus source into the archive! I suggest 3 splits openoffice.org openoffice.org-doc openoffice.org-common openoffice.org-gallery openoffice.org is the main package that contains the platform dependant files it depends on OOo-common and recommends OOo-doc and OOo-gallery OOo-doc is the docs ;-) this is basically the help files split out. OOo-gallery is the clipart and backgrounds but not the applications I think those 2 should be done before anything else, because they would probably be heavy and are easy to extract. I'm willing to help, but have no idea for now about the location of those files. OOo-common is the rest! All platform independent Far less easy to split. Other options could be OOo-printers containing all the printer drivers and OOo-templates with all the templates, OOo-java containing the java files. What does everybody think? I dont think that we want to split it up to much but getting some of the bulkier items into separate downloads that are both common across all platforms and dont need to be downloaded every update could help I think. Then we could do OOo_1.0-5 depends on OOo-common = 1.00-3. If we can agree what is needed then I will look into it further. The problem I see is that we would still have to download the full source package to do that! Isn't a way to split that also? I think this is an upstream issue. Are we close enough to ask them to make it? john Jérôme -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
