You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/05/19 19:00:39 UTC
Linux install issues
Hi all--
It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
way some vendors have installed LO.
see:
http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
of the LO overlap?
Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
* completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
* completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>.
Jurgen,
>From my perspective as a user, I would love to have an official YUM
repository with AOO available. This would break a lot of barries from
less technical people on RPM distributions. I would suppose the same
could be said about APT repositories.
Now we have an issue... A vendor (Fedora/Red Hat) a few years ago
introduced an "Epoch" in their packages. As I said before, once
defined, Epoch will be used as the supreme comparison method. Epoch
and names together provide a huge barrier to have products from the OS
vendor and Apache to be installed simultaneously, which has some
potential fixes:
1) Rename the RPMs - There might be some advantages on this at all
levels, either technical and towards user friendliness;
2) Introduce Epoch:
1 - Use Epoch one: would allows us to dodge a few issues with
Fedora and Red Hat, but with openSUSE would probably create a
situation where Apache RPMs would take all priority over OS vendor
packages. If we don't like it the way Red Hat does, doing the same
ourselves with openSUSE doesn't sound nice, but, it's a way out;
2 - Use an absurd Epoch value (like 2000, Sun does it with JDK);
this would mean that if a YUM repository with our RPMs is available,
automatically it will replace Libre Office... Which makes some sense
since if a user adds your repo, it probably means that he/she wants to
use your product.
Now this isn't really a fun choice to do.... but the current way,
asking users to blacklist packages and give them a few bits of low
level work to do before being able to use the software... that
probably harms more Apache OpenOffice than choosing between the
approaches above.
I don't mind writting up a document with this contents, demonstration
and eventually point a few other things that can be improved in the
RPM metadata fields.
I can't speak for non-RPM platforms as I don't use them. Please take
into consideration that the changes I mentioned above (either names or
Epoch) are done during packaging and only require that the spec
templates are adjusted. I don't mind exploring this much deeper and
provide a document if someone can point me the right namespace on the
wiki to do it.
NM
2012/5/21 Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>> One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
>>
>>
>
>
> I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should change any names.
> We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc.
>
> So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what depends in this...
>
> Juergen
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
>> To: ooo-dev
>> Subject: Linux install issues
>>
>> Hi all--
>>
>> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
>> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
>> way some vendors have installed LO.
>>
>> see:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>>
>>
>> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>>
>> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>>
>> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
>> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
>> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
>> of the LO overlap?
>>
>> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
>> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>>
>> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
>> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>>
>> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
>> -- Mark Twain
>>
>>
>
>
--
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:
> @Kay,
>
> I believe the dialog is still there for optionally setting associations
> for .doc, .ppt, and .xls works. I should double-check that too. But there
> is definitely no detection that .odt, .ods, .odp, etc., are already
> assigned to an application other than OpenOffice.org, and no polite request
> or warning.
>
oh -- I see
>
> I need to do this on purpose under repeatable test conditions and capture
> details for a bug report. But I have seen it too often without warning of
> any kind during installs I was conducting for other purposes.
>
> - Dennis
>
> (It is too late to complain about the silent, automatic removal of earlier
> OO.o versions. It would have been good to follow the LibreOffice precedent
> of having OpenOffice3.4 start its own install directory, etc., just as the
> 3.x versions of LO do.)
>
Yeah-- I don't think that's happening for Linux. I included a "to do" on
this for Linux users on the revised Install Guide I put out today as it's
basically required to get things to work.
I don't work on windows. Install instructions for Linux state where the
installation will go. Many Linux folks know how to control the actual
installation area if they want to.
Dennis, it might be very helpful for you to make some changes to the
Windows install instructions in--
http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
to address some of your concerns. If you have them, I'm sure others do too.
You could add in there how to install to an alternate area, etc.
I didn't spend any time at all looking at the Windows information, and
didn't receive feedback about a month ago when I first started working on
this.
Please fix as you see the need.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 15:43
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Linux install issues
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> > wrote:
>
> > I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as
> > owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that doesn't
> > matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of
> supporting
> > them with the present arrangement.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on
> > existing file associations too.
> >
>
> no advance warning? asking politely?
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> > Subject: Re: Linux install issues
> >
> > Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >
> > One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use
> > the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc.,
> any
> > longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
> >
> >
> > I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should
> > change any names.
> > We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially
> > break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc.
> >
> > So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what
> > depends in this...
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
> > To: ooo-dev
> > Subject: Linux install issues
> >
> > Hi all--
> >
> > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems
> > with Linux
> > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due
> > to the
> > way some vendors have installed LO.
> >
> > see:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
> >
> >
> > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
> >
> > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
> >
> > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and
> > well, still
> > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old
> > OOo 3.3 is
> > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to
> > handle some
> > of the LO overlap?
> >
> > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go
> about
> > installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
> >
> > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install
> > LO?
> > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
> >
> > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my
> distro.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> > -- Mark Twain
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
RE: Linux install issues
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
@Kay,
I believe the dialog is still there for optionally setting associations for .doc, .ppt, and .xls works. I should double-check that too. But there is definitely no detection that .odt, .ods, .odp, etc., are already assigned to an application other than OpenOffice.org, and no polite request or warning.
I need to do this on purpose under repeatable test conditions and capture details for a bug report. But I have seen it too often without warning of any kind during installs I was conducting for other purposes.
- Dennis
(It is too late to complain about the silent, automatic removal of earlier OO.o versions. It would have been good to follow the LibreOffice precedent of having OpenOffice3.4 start its own install directory, etc., just as the 3.x versions of LO do.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 15:43
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: Linux install issues
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:
> I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as
> owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that doesn't
> matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of supporting
> them with the present arrangement.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on
> existing file associations too.
>
no advance warning? asking politely?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Linux install issues
>
> Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>
> One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use
> the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any
> longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
>
>
> I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should
> change any names.
> We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially
> break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc.
>
> So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what
> depends in this...
>
> Juergen
>
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
> To: ooo-dev
> Subject: Linux install issues
>
> Hi all--
>
> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems
> with Linux
> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due
> to the
> way some vendors have installed LO.
>
> see:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>
>
> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>
> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>
> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and
> well, still
> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old
> OOo 3.3 is
> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to
> handle some
> of the LO overlap?
>
> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>
> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install
> LO?
> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>
> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:
> I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as
> owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that doesn't
> matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of supporting
> them with the present arrangement.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on
> existing file associations too.
>
no advance warning? asking politely?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Linux install issues
>
> Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>
> One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use
> the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any
> longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
>
>
> I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should
> change any names.
> We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially
> break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc.
>
> So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what
> depends in this...
>
> Juergen
>
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
> To: ooo-dev
> Subject: Linux install issues
>
> Hi all--
>
> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems
> with Linux
> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due
> to the
> way some vendors have installed LO.
>
> see:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>
>
> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>
> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>
> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and
> well, still
> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old
> OOo 3.3 is
> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to
> handle some
> of the LO overlap?
>
> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>
> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install
> LO?
> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>
> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
RE: Linux install issues
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that doesn't matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of supporting them with the present arrangement.
- Dennis
PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on existing file associations too.
-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: Linux install issues
Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should change any names.
We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc.
So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what depends in this...
Juergen
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
To: ooo-dev
Subject: Linux install issues
Hi all--
It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
way some vendors have installed LO.
see:
http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
of the LO overlap?
Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
* completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
* completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
>
>
I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should change any names.
We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc.
So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what depends in this...
Juergen
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
> To: ooo-dev
> Subject: Linux install issues
>
> Hi all--
>
> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
> way some vendors have installed LO.
>
> see:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>
>
> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>
> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>
> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
> of the LO overlap?
>
> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>
> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>
> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
>
>
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/19 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 2012/5/19 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>:
>> > One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the
>> same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any
>> longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
>>
>>
>> This would be a partial solution depending on what the internal
>> dependency generator from the RPM does when it creates the RPM's. And
>> would allow us not to deal with the Epoch (which is good, since Epoch
>> is a very dangerous thing).
>>
>> Where do I find documentation to build AAO from source so I can
>> repackage it and generate a YUM repository to provide as a proof of
>> concept that adresses the fixes wanted ?
>>
>>
> Nelson --
>
> please see the project "source" page for information:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/source.html
I've already started up the process, there's cool references and
documentation on the sources. I'm currently building a few
dependencies in my home build system and eventually I will break
through.
Regarding the binary distribution from AOO, I've extracted all the
stuff from the RPMs and I'm trying to repackage the binary release in
a more efficient way. I've changed the names of the packages to:
apache-openoffice-<COMPONENT>-<VERSION>-<RELEASE>.<ARCH>.rpm
ex:
apache-openoffice-base-3.4-1.1.nmarques.el6.x86_64.rpm
apache-openoffice-writer-3.4-1.1.nmarques.el6.x86_64.rpm
(...)
I've also changed the place where they install to:
/opt/apache-openoffice/aoo3
/opt/apache-openoffice/aoo
Now this filesystem change depending on how those binaries were build
will most likely bring issues... I've made a quick check on some of
the binaries and found out that RPATH is set to $ORIGIN ... Eventually
depending on what $ORIGIN is and if it can be manipulated, this might
work...
Once I'm done I'll share my achievements and eventually anything that
can be re-used to improve the distribution of this binaries, in case
there's interest.
Anything I need info I'll ping around :)
Thanks all.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > - Dennis
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
>> > To: ooo-dev
>> > Subject: Linux install issues
>> >
>> > Hi all--
>> >
>> > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with
>> Linux
>> > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
>> > way some vendors have installed LO.
>> >
>> > see:
>> >
>> > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>> >
>> > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>> >
>> > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well,
>> still
>> > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3
>> is
>> > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle
>> some
>> > of the LO overlap?
>> >
>> > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
>> > installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>> >
>> > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
>> > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>> >
>> > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
>> > -- Mark Twain
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nelson Marques
>> // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
>> bread in the middle...
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
--
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2012/5/19 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>:
> > One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the
> same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any
> longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
>
>
> This would be a partial solution depending on what the internal
> dependency generator from the RPM does when it creates the RPM's. And
> would allow us not to deal with the Epoch (which is good, since Epoch
> is a very dangerous thing).
>
> Where do I find documentation to build AAO from source so I can
> repackage it and generate a YUM repository to provide as a proof of
> concept that adresses the fixes wanted ?
>
>
Nelson --
please see the project "source" page for information:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/source.html
>
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
> > To: ooo-dev
> > Subject: Linux install issues
> >
> > Hi all--
> >
> > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with
> Linux
> > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
> > way some vendors have installed LO.
> >
> > see:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
> >
> >
> > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
> >
> > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
> >
> > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well,
> still
> > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3
> is
> > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle
> some
> > of the LO overlap?
> >
> > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> > installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
> >
> > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
> > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
> >
> > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> > -- Mark Twain
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nelson Marques
> // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
> bread in the middle...
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/19 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>:
> One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
This would be a partial solution depending on what the internal
dependency generator from the RPM does when it creates the RPM's. And
would allow us not to deal with the Epoch (which is good, since Epoch
is a very dangerous thing).
Where do I find documentation to build AAO from source so I can
repackage it and generate a YUM repository to provide as a proof of
concept that adresses the fixes wanted ?
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
> To: ooo-dev
> Subject: Linux install issues
>
> Hi all--
>
> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
> way some vendors have installed LO.
>
> see:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>
>
> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>
> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>
> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
> of the LO overlap?
>
> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>
> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>
> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
>
--
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...
RE: Linux install issues
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
> Better for who? [;<)
>
Power users that may want, for example, to run two different
Office suites at the same time. :-P.
Pedro.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:25
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: RE: Linux install issues
>
> Hi Dennis;
>
> --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> ha scritto:
> ...
> > One enduring solution would be to
> > break with the past and not use the same file names for
> the
> > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
>
>
> A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
>
> Pedro.
>
>
RE: Linux install issues
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Better for who? [;<)
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: RE: Linux install issues
Hi Dennis;
--- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
...
> One enduring solution would be to
> break with the past and not use the same file names for the
> binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
Pedro.
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 05/20/12 11:14, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni<pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dennis;
>>
>> --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton<de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
>> ...
>>> One enduring solution would be to
>>> break with the past and not use the same file names for the
>>> binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
>> A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
>>
> I had a feeling this was coming! :)
>
Ah well ... couldn't help an altruistic thought for once :).
Pedro.
(Of course I am not paid to do stuff in FreeBSD or AOO.)
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2012 um 23:18 schrieb Nelson Marques:
> 2012/5/21 Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> > Am Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 um 18:21 schrieb Nelson Marques:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823217
> > >
> > > Guys, like I said previously, there's only 2 ways to get out of this
> > > with RPM and YUM/Zypp (Red Hat/Clones and *SUSE):
> > >
> > > 1) Insert an Epoch on the rpm spec template:
> > >
> > > (...)
> > > Name: ....
> > > Epoch: 2000
> > > Version:
> > > Release: ....
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > 2) Rename the packages, ex:
> > > - aao-base
> > > - aao-ure
> > > - aao-writer
> > >
> > > I suggest aao, because that's the same name used on the source,
> > > so it would get somehow uniform around.
> > >
> >
> >
> > no, I assume you mean aoo. But again please be careful with such changes, I don't see demand for it now. I would prefer to seek the dialog with the distros that they change the package names or any other names, registry entries that relies to OpenOffice but are currently used by LibreOffice. I won't accept that LibreOffice replace OpenOffice without making clear that there is a newer version for OOo ad well or better to replace it in general.
>
> Sorry, you are right, I meant aoo. Please consider that I only
> repackaged for my own usage, now I can have both Libre Office and
> Apache OpenOffice on the same system without conflicts. I'm not
> sharing anything with the public.
>
>
that's fine and it would be welcome
if the project can benefit from your knowledge. Renaming the pa Lahr might be ok but others are changes are potentially not trivial and have more dependencies (e.g. /user/bin/soffice)
The only I would like to mention is that we should be careful with such changes.
We should ask
- what is the benefit/ value of the change
- is it worth the effort
- what depends on this change
- what will potentially break
- ...
Juergen
(excuse potential typos, I am writing from my phone)
>
> While I can offer myself to help improving your packaging, there's not
> really anything else I can do ;)
>
> > Juergen
> > >
> > >
> > > Either way this isn't an issue anymore for me, as from this point on I
> > > am forced to rebuild AAO; since there are no real problems with this
> > > option, thats my path, since it allows me not to depend on upstream
> > > neither on vendor tyranical approach.
> > >
> > > NM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/5/20 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Dennis;
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > One enduring solution would be to
> > > > > > break with the past and not use the same file names for the
> > > > > > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
> > > >
> > > > I had a feeling this was coming! :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > MzK
> > > >
> > > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> > > > -- Mark Twain
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nelson Marques
> > > // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
> > > bread in the middle...
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nelson Marques
> // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
> bread in the middle...
>
>
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/21 Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> Am Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 um 18:21 schrieb Nelson Marques:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823217
>>
>> Guys, like I said previously, there's only 2 ways to get out of this
>> with RPM and YUM/Zypp (Red Hat/Clones and *SUSE):
>>
>> 1) Insert an Epoch on the rpm spec template:
>>
>> (...)
>> Name: ....
>> Epoch: 2000
>> Version:
>> Release: ....
>> (...)
>>
>> 2) Rename the packages, ex:
>> - aao-base
>> - aao-ure
>> - aao-writer
>>
>> I suggest aao, because that's the same name used on the source,
>> so it would get somehow uniform around.
>>
>>
>
> no, I assume you mean aoo. But again please be careful with such changes, I don't see demand for it now. I would prefer to seek the dialog with the distros that they change the package names or any other names, registry entries that relies to OpenOffice but are currently used by LibreOffice. I won't accept that LibreOffice replace OpenOffice without making clear that there is a newer version for OOo ad well or better to replace it in general.
>
Sorry, you are right, I meant aoo. Please consider that I only
repackaged for my own usage, now I can have both Libre Office and
Apache OpenOffice on the same system without conflicts. I'm not
sharing anything with the public.
While I can offer myself to help improving your packaging, there's not
really anything else I can do ;)
> Juergen
>>
>>
>> Either way this isn't an issue anymore for me, as from this point on I
>> am forced to rebuild AAO; since there are no real problems with this
>> option, thats my path, since it allows me not to depend on upstream
>> neither on vendor tyranical approach.
>>
>> NM
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/5/20 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Dennis;
>> > >
>> > > --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
>> > > ...
>> > > > One enduring solution would be to
>> > > > break with the past and not use the same file names for the
>> > > > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
>> >
>> > I had a feeling this was coming! :)
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Pedro.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
>> > -- Mark Twain
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nelson Marques
>> // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
>> bread in the middle...
>>
>>
>
>
--
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Am Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 um 18:21 schrieb Nelson Marques:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823217
>
> Guys, like I said previously, there's only 2 ways to get out of this
> with RPM and YUM/Zypp (Red Hat/Clones and *SUSE):
>
> 1) Insert an Epoch on the rpm spec template:
>
> (...)
> Name: ....
> Epoch: 2000
> Version:
> Release: ....
> (...)
>
> 2) Rename the packages, ex:
> - aao-base
> - aao-ure
> - aao-writer
>
> I suggest aao, because that's the same name used on the source,
> so it would get somehow uniform around.
>
>
no, I assume you mean aoo. But again please be careful with such changes, I don't see demand for it now. I would prefer to seek the dialog with the distros that they change the package names or any other names, registry entries that relies to OpenOffice but are currently used by LibreOffice. I won't accept that LibreOffice replace OpenOffice without making clear that there is a newer version for OOo ad well or better to replace it in general.
Juergen
>
>
> Either way this isn't an issue anymore for me, as from this point on I
> am forced to rebuild AAO; since there are no real problems with this
> option, thats my path, since it allows me not to depend on upstream
> neither on vendor tyranical approach.
>
> NM
>
>
>
> 2012/5/20 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dennis;
> > >
> > > --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
> > > ...
> > > > One enduring solution would be to
> > > > break with the past and not use the same file names for the
> > > > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
> >
> > I had a feeling this was coming! :)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> > -- Mark Twain
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nelson Marques
> // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
> bread in the middle...
>
>
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Nelson Marques <nm...@gmail.com>.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823217
Guys, like I said previously, there's only 2 ways to get out of this
with RPM and YUM/Zypp (Red Hat/Clones and *SUSE):
1) Insert an Epoch on the rpm spec template:
(...)
Name: ....
Epoch: 2000
Version:
Release: ....
(...)
2) Rename the packages, ex:
- aao-base
- aao-ure
- aao-writer
I suggest aao, because that's the same name used on the source,
so it would get somehow uniform around.
Either way this isn't an issue anymore for me, as from this point on I
am forced to rebuild AAO; since there are no real problems with this
option, thats my path, since it allows me not to depend on upstream
neither on vendor tyranical approach.
NM
2012/5/20 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dennis;
>>
>> --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
>> ...
>> > One enduring solution would be to
>> > break with the past and not use the same file names for the
>> > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
>>
>> A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
>>
>
> I had a feeling this was coming! :)
>
>
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
--
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Dennis;
>
> --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
> ...
> > One enduring solution would be to
> > break with the past and not use the same file names for the
> > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
>
> A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
>
I had a feeling this was coming! :)
>
> Pedro.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
RE: Linux install issues
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Dennis;
--- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> ha scritto:
...
> One enduring solution would be to
> break with the past and not use the same file names for the
> binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
Pedro.
RE: Linux install issues
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01
To: ooo-dev
Subject: Linux install issues
Hi all--
It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
way some vendors have installed LO.
see:
http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
of the LO overlap?
Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
* completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
* completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
On 05/19/2012 01:00 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Hi all--
>
> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
> way some vendors have installed LO.
>
> see:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>
>
> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>
> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>
> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
> of the LO overlap?
>
> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>
> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>
> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>
I use Fedora and I have never used the version included by the distro.
For OOo and then later for Libre-O, I manually uninstalled the packages.
Something like this:
rpm -qa | grep -i obasis > foo.txt
rpm -qa | grep -i openoffice >> foo.txt
rpm -e `cat foo.txt`
For libre, the second grep term was a wee bit different, I don't
remember now since I only have done that once. Now, after uninstalling
the product, I had to modify /etc/yum.conf to contain the lines
exclude=openoffice*
exclude=libreoffice*
This prevented yum from updating these packages later. Something similar
needs to be done with Ubuntu type builds I believe.
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 05/20/2012 09:29 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
> <andrew@pitonyak.org <ma...@pitonyak.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/19/2012 04:52 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Rory O'Farrell<ofarrwrk@iol.ie
> <ma...@iol.ie>> �wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:00:39 -0700
> Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> �wrote:
>
> Hi all--
>
>
> OK, thanks. I will wait "until the world turns" :) before
> editing the
> install guide.
>
>
> Remember that pretty much nothing has changed with respect to what
> must be done with AOO as opposed to OOo. In other words, I never
> noticed that it was an issue because I needed to do all these steps
> for many years. I have always done it if I did not care to stick
> with the version provided by the distro.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Pitonyak
> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/__AndrewMacro.odt
> <http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
> Info: �http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
>
> Thanks again Andrew and Nelson --
>
> I very much appreciate your insights here.� What would be really great
> is if both of you signed up for a wiki account -- the openoffice.org
> <http://openoffice.org> wiki, http://wiki.services.openoffice.org -- and
> collaborate to add an entry for Installing on Fedora on the FAQ
> Installation page --
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/Installation.
>
> We already have a a general "How to Install on Linux" there, but it
> probably needs to be updated. I could take of that. Anyone can apply for
> a wiki account.
>
> Thanks again for all our help.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
OK, there's an updated version of the install guide out there now.
PLEASE either fix or let me know if I've made a grievous error somewhere.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/19/2012 04:52 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Rory O'Farrell<of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:00:39 -0700
>>> Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, thanks. I will wait "until the world turns" :) before editing the
>> install guide.
>>
>
> Remember that pretty much nothing has changed with respect to what must be
> done with AOO as opposed to OOo. In other words, I never noticed that it
> was an issue because I needed to do all these steps for many years. I have
> always done it if I did not care to stick with the version provided by the
> distro.
>
>
>
>>
>>
> --
> Andrew Pitonyak
> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
> Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
>
Thanks again Andrew and Nelson --
I very much appreciate your insights here. What would be really great is
if both of you signed up for a wiki account -- the openoffice.org wiki,
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org -- and collaborate to add an entry for
Installing on Fedora on the FAQ Installation page --
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/Installation.
We already have a a general "How to Install on Linux" there, but it
probably needs to be updated. I could take of that. Anyone can apply for a
wiki account.
Thanks again for all our help.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
On 05/19/2012 04:52 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Rory O'Farrell<of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:00:39 -0700
>> Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all--
>>>
>>>
> OK, thanks. I will wait "until the world turns" :) before editing the
> install guide.
Remember that pretty much nothing has changed with respect to what must
be done with AOO as opposed to OOo. In other words, I never noticed that
it was an issue because I needed to do all these steps for many years. I
have always done it if I did not care to stick with the version provided
by the distro.
>
>
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:00:39 -0700
> Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all--
> >
> > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with
> Linux
> > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
> > way some vendors have installed LO.
> >
> > see:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
> >
> >
> > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
> >
> > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
> >
> > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well,
> still
> > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3
> is
> > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle
> some
> > of the LO overlap?
> >
> > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> > installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
> >
> > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
> > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
> >
> > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> > -- Mark Twain
>
> Kay
>
> My experience with OOo 2.3- AOO 3.4 on Ubuntu distros from 8.04 forward
> was that it was always best to remove the distro version of OOo before
> installing the Oracle OOo. I used do this by using the package manager
> Synaptic to remove openoffice.org-core, which took the other packages
> (Writer, Calc etc) with it. In more recent Ubuntus OOo was replaced by
> LibO, and I removed that in a similar fashion (libreoffice.org-core).
> After such removals I never had ant difficulty installing the
> Oracle/Apache OpenOffice versions.
>
> It may not have been strictly necessary to remove an earlier version so
> completely, but after having installation difficulties in my early days I
> now do this as a matter of course on the seven machines under my control.
>
OK, thanks. I will wait "until the world turns" :) before editing the
install guide.
>From what I've seen on the Forums, things get very frustrating trying to
deal with some distros. I lucked out, or did the right things at the right
time or something.
and Dennis on your comment --
I'm sure those most intimately involved with the development will have an
opinion about this. It could work.
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
-- Mark Twain
Re: Linux install issues
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:00:39 -0700
Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all--
>
> It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems with Linux
> installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due to the
> way some vendors have installed LO.
>
> see:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn
>
>
> I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
>
> but I'm at a loss as to what this should say.
>
> I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and well, still
> at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old OOo 3.3 is
> a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to handle some
> of the LO overlap?
>
> Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go about
> installing AOO 3.4 on linux?
>
> * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install LO?
> * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then?
>
> Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my distro.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
Kay
My experience with OOo 2.3- AOO 3.4 on Ubuntu distros from 8.04 forward was that it was always best to remove the distro version of OOo before installing the Oracle OOo. I used do this by using the package manager Synaptic to remove openoffice.org-core, which took the other packages (Writer, Calc etc) with it. In more recent Ubuntus OOo was replaced by LibO, and I removed that in a similar fashion (libreoffice.org-core). After such removals I never had ant difficulty installing the Oracle/Apache OpenOffice versions.
It may not have been strictly necessary to remove an earlier version so completely, but after having installation difficulties in my early days I now do this as a matter of course on the seven machines under my control.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>