2007/7/19, Harold Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 19/07/07, NoOp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 07/18/2007 10:45 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > John Barman wrote: > >> I have recently updated my OO programme to the latest stable > >> version (2.2.9161) I find that none of my existing web hyperlinks > >> now work. Typing the URL directly in the Windows Explorer browser > >> works OK, as does the same hyperlink from a MS Word Document, but > >> links in OO Write and OO Calc now generate an error message: > >> "Windows cannot find https:// ....etc. Make sure you typed the name > >> correctly and then try again. To search for a file, check the Start > >> button and then check Search." > >> > >> John Barman > >> > >> > >> > > Hmmmm. > > > > 1. The *latest* version of OO is 2.2.1 not 2.2.9161 as you mention. > > Where did you get it from? (or was the 9161 a typo?) > > I doubt that it is a typo; if you look at the OOo RPM you'll find that > they are listed at 2.2.9161 etc. For example, the previous (June) 2.3dev > .rpm files are: > > ooo-dev-core01-2.3.0-9171.i586.rpm > ooo-dev-writer-2.3.0-9171.i586.rpm > > 2.2.0 was 2.20-9134.i5586.rpm > > > I don't have a Windows version handy right now to check, but perhaps the > windows files a similar numbering scheme? > > I'm a little confused by your post: the OP says he's using Windows Explorer and MS Word which suggests he's on Windows; aren't .rpm files related to Linux installations? Or is this yet another stick I've got the wrong end of? -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
Harold, rpm-files are indeed used for downloads to (Red Hat versions of) Linux, so you definitely don't have the wrong end of the stick. But after re-reading John Barman's post, I can't help wondering if he doesn't - could it possibly be the case that he inadvertently downloaded files meant for a Red Hat installation to a Windows machine ?... Henri
