Re: Problems with OpenOffice 2.3.1 on FreeBSD
Robert Huff wrote: Philipp Ost writes: Any ideas? This is a serious situation to me, due to the need of a properly working OO :-( No, perhaps using an other word processor (AbiWord, StarOffice). Or going back to OOo 2.3.0... This has been discussed within the last two weeks on the openoffice@ list. A message from Peter Jeremy on December 14 contains both information about the cause and a patch. Robert Huff ___ I am not an OpenOffice user but my 2c about the topic as the problem I think underline more serous issue. The question is why is OpenOffice 2.3.1 included in the ports three so quickly without making sure that things work properly. BSD systems are genuinely known for their stability and code correctness which is why most people decided to use them on the first place. Rushing to include new software in the ports three without proper testing is seriously going to damage usability of the whole OS. In my understanding ports tree is supporting stable and the current brunch. I am of the opinion that the ports three of the stable branch should not include nothing but the rock solid and tested software. The easiest way for me to check if the port is bleeding edge that is to try to install the same software using binaries. (pkg_add -r) If the binaries do not exist or if the version installed from binaries is older that clearly indicates that the port version is too new to be trusted. I personally found out that Xfce4-panel is not compiling properly on stable and also Orage (calendar for Xfce) While problems with Xfce4-panel are not as serious as with Orage (which is not usable in any shape or form on FreeBSD) they are still serious. The same packages work flawlessly on the OpenBSD. Happy New Year to Everybody Predrag freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with OpenOffice 2.3.1 on FreeBSD
Philipp Ost wrote: O. Hartmann wrote: [...] Whenever I try to save a document in OO writer, OO gets stuck and I have to kill it. The document gets saved, but I never can load it again without rendering OO unusuable. Opening M$ Word docs or OO docs doesn't matter. I have similar problems with OpenOffice 2.3.1 on FreeBSD/i386 (I'm running 7.0-PRE as of Dec 23). It's possible to save documents but exiting OOo hangs and I need to kill it. Firing up OOo once again, there's this recovery stuff which hangs also and eats up CPU time. Only way out: kill -9 $PID Opening a document via 'File - Open - ...' hangs also. .odt or .doc doesn't matter. Any ideas? This is a serious situation to me, due to the need of a properly working OO :-( No, perhaps using an other word processor (AbiWord, StarOffice). Or going back to OOo 2.3.0... Regards, Philipp ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not an OpenOffice user but my 2c about the topic as the problem I think underline more serous issue. The question is why is OpenOffice 2.3.1 included in the ports three so quickly without making sure that things work properly. BSD systems are genuinely known for their stability and code correctness which is why most people decided to use them on the first place. Rushing to include new software in the ports three without proper testing is seriously going to damage usability of the whole OS. In my understanding ports tree is supporting stable and the current brunch. I am of the opinion that the ports three of the stable branch should not include nothing but the rock solid and tested software. The easiest way for me to check if the port is bleeding edge that is to try to install the same software using binaries. (pkg_add -r) If the binaries do not exist or if the version installed from binaries is older that clearly indicates that the port version is too new to be trusted. I personally found out that Xfce4-panel is not compiling properly on stable and also Orage (calendar for Xfce) While problems with Xfce4-panel are not as serious as with Orage (which is not usable in any shape or form on FreeBSD) they are still serious. The same packages work flawlessly on the OpenBSD. Happy New Year to Everybody Predrag ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: powerdot
Norberto Meijome wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:05:52 -0700
Predrag Punosevac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I hope that they are aware but it seems that nobody is acting on
these issues(or at least not fast enough).
Predrag,
as good as your intentions seem to be, the results would be better if you provided help porting the apps you are interested in, or testing them, or helping.in the lists, or donating money to developers / ports / FreeBSD Foundation. Maybe you do already, and we thank you for that.
In the meantime, you and many of us will have to wait patiently for those that
are generous enough and have the time to provide the resources
(code/fixes/ports) for us to use FreeBSD for fun and profit.
Best regards,
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
An invasion of armies can be resisted,
but not an idea whose time has come.
Victor Hugo
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
Dear Victor,
I apologize if I offended anybody. I had best of intentions when I send
the first mail.
I wish, I had knowledge to do the port myself. It never thought of that
but could you direct me to a documents from which I could learn how to
do ports.
Sincerely,
Predrag Punosevac
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
powerdot
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that there is a new (actually about 3 years old) Latex class of presentations called powerdot which replaces obsolete and baggy class of presentations called prosper (comprehensive information about all Latex classes of slide presentations can be found at http://texcatalogue.sarovar.org/bytopic.html#present). Prosper is ported for a very long time, beamer another popular class of presentations is ported as well. However powerdot is not ported. The advantages of powerdot over beamer are plentiful (starting with the fact that manual is about 60 pages vs beamer manual 400pages). The only reason that beamer seems to gain more popularity is that fact that can be directly compiled by pdflatex while powerdot requires texdvipspdf. This is really not a problem since most integrated tex environments allow users to set the option texdvipspdf for compiling. On the same note I believe that the issue of the porting of TeXLive (light version of course) should be reconsidered not just because of the fact that TeXLive includes powerdot and beamer as a standard packages but because teTeX will not exist for to much longer (I am not sure if you are familiar with the fact that teTeX is winding down activities and that LiveTeX is becoming standard *nix distribution). Sincerely, Predrag Punosevac Department of Mathematics The University of Arizona (520) 578-9861 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: powerdot
Nikola Lecic wrote: Nobody thinks that TeXLive shouldn't be ported :) What do you mean by light version? One of original arguments for not porting TeXLive was that the program is simply to big (over 1Gb). Having downloaded TeXLive (binaries only) on several occasions for my friends over DSL I can confess that that is really the case (at least 3 hours for binaries over 1.5Mps DSL connection) . I purpose that the program be ported in the style of Gnome. Light strip down version which would be the minimal fully functional configuration, full (English language) version with all bells, and then another port with the support for different languages, another port Music part of the TeXLive etc. The idea of dividing the port is just initial and should be more carefully considered by the people who know more about various aspects of TeX that I do not use. Sincerely, Predrag Punosevac ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: powerdot
Nikola Lecic wrote: On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:15:57 -0700 Predrag Punosevac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nikola Lecic wrote: Nobody thinks that TeXLive shouldn't be ported :) What do you mean by light version? One of original arguments for not porting TeXLive was that the program is simply to big (over 1Gb). Having downloaded TeXLive (binaries only) on several occasions for my friends over DSL I can confess that that is really the case (at least 3 hours for binaries over 1.5Mps DSL connection) . Binaries are 38M: % du -sh /usr/local/texlive/2007/bin/i386-freebsd/ 38M/usr/local/texlive/2007/bin/i386-freebsd/ (~270 binaries). texmf-dist/: common, platform-independent resources: 972M texmf-doc/: 136M I purpose that the program be ported in the style of Gnome. Light strip down version which would be the minimal fully functional configuration, full (English language) version with all bells, and then another port with the support for different languages, another port Music part of the TeXLive etc. Well, yes, of course, this is the way it was done where TeXLive was ported (OpenBSD, Debian...): as modularised as possible. The idea of dividing the port is just initial and should be more carefully considered by the people who know more about various aspects of TeX that I do not use. What makes you think they are not aware of this? Nikola Lečić Well, I hope that they are aware but it seems that nobody is acting on these issues(or at least not fast enough). ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
