On 07/19/2007 12:44 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
> 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?
> 

Perhaps you missed:
"I don't have a Windows version handy right now to check, but perhaps
the windows files a similar numbering scheme?"

That was a question. I was simply pointing out that the various versions
(at least on linux) have numbering schemes that appear to match what he
is reporting. So I suspect that the actual windows files probably have
the same or similar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to