just get the tgz packages from linuxpackaes.net or from www.slacky.it. I'm using the OOO 2.0.1 tgz package from slacky.it and it works fine.
On 2/5/06, Arctic Fidelity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:57:15 -0600, Ross Johnson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 16:10 -0600, Arctic Fidelity wrote: > >> 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: > >> > > >> >> 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? > >> > > >> > 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. > > > > If this were not freely distributable software I would agree, but > > because it is: > > > > Google 'openoffice deb' for sites that offer deb packaged openoffice. > > > > For a tgz version of OOv2.0.1 there is: > > http://www.linuxpackages.net/pkg_details.php?id=7951 > > I see, yes, linuxpackages.net does seem to be the de facto standard for > Slackware packages, but I think it should be noted as well, that a good > deal of people are uncomfortable or unable to obtain the software from a > 3rd party packaging unit. The reasons vary, but one that I have > encountered is if they are a business, and have semi-strict policy > regarding the procedures for obtaining software online. Therefore, if such > a situation exists, it is very difficult for that company to then "screen" > these third party sites to verify their safety. (Largely this is a lot of > beaurecratic junk, but I have seen it happen, first hand.) The addition of > correct MD5 or GPG signed packages helps. > > For some people, I think there is a certain...presumption that packages > from the original site are safer, or more reliable, than those distributed > by third parties. > > - 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] > > -- " I though what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf mutes...or should I...?" User #364495 with the Linux Counter http://counter.li.org wakizaki.blogspot.com
