On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:24:40 -0600, G. Roderick Singleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:19 -0800, Paul Duncan wrote:
I've joined the mailing list seeking answers :-)
I was able to easily use V1.1.4 and 1.1.5 on both
Linux and Windows, but I can only use V2.0.1 on
Windows. Can anyone tell me why the Linux packaging
was changed to such an unfriendly format?
There is an independently built slackware version
available, but I've not managed to get to work on a
stock Slackware 10.2 system. In desperation I'm
currently downloading the source code to have a go at
building it myself. Has anyone on the users list done
this, and are there any pitfalls to watch out for?
There are Slackware instructions in the Setup Guide link on
http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.1/ which is the page you land on when
you Click the Download graphic on the main www.openoffice.org page. You
may want to check if you have rpm2tgz available and if not install it.
I realize that this is possibly something of a personal preference, but I
would just like to put my vote in saying how much I really dislike when a
program's binaries are distributed only in RPM format. I dislike the
rpm2tgz utility, and the whole process of having to convert an rpm to a
tgz. I would really prefer it if binary distributors would be kind enough
to non-rpm distributions and provide, for example, tgz and deb packages as
well as rpm formats. From what I understand, the work is not that hard,
and I believe that the overall ease and benefits of flexibility and choice
for the end-user is well worth it.
Just my little two cents here. I guess you could say it's a bit of a
non-technical petpeeve of mine.
- Arctic
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
