Ximian openoffice

tpowa · 2004-05-31 13:28:24

oh i forgot
4. get the binaries you need from http://www.openoffice.org (the one i use)extract them and run 'setup -net' by hand then you have full control over everything OO should do

i didn't mean jgc package is slow
i only think it doesn't give you a perfomance boost if it's 686 compiled
but i use a athlon XP 2200 and there it's hard to see a difference

tpowa · 2004-05-31 13:59:19

i made a new topic under to discuss ideas of installing OO under
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=4844

shen · 2004-05-31 18:11:39

How well does this package work with non kde/gnome WM's and such? I realise it will work very well in gnome and kde jsut not sure if it will work and integrate the same in other wm's..ANyone have any input on this?

sarah31 · 2004-06-09 05:45:06

personally i wouldn't touch ANY ximian packages at all so that would leave me without a openoffice should ximian become the standard. libgnomecups would also eliminate users of the lprng print setups as they conflict. not to mention bring libgnomecups in brings in more packages for the gnome maintainer and likely forces a user to swallow more gnome packages.

now when i first put together this package arch had users with various native languages but there were no demands except by english users. it is also not difficult to add languages and i just don't understand why this had/had not been done by the current maintainer. that being said being hostile about having an english only version is unfair. anyone who has tried building OOo from raw source knows that it is not an easy task i had plans to improve thapackage over time and not leave it english only. so accusing developers of being prejudice because they have not taken the time out to rebuild a very difficult packeg is just not right.

one final thing i agree with Xentac that there should be ONE openoffice package and it should be a the current one (once it can be compiled under gcc 3.4) but with full language support added. trust me ximian is nothing but trouble.

IceRAM · 2004-06-09 09:17:11

sarah31 wrote:

that being said being hostile about having an english only version is unfair.

If this is about me, please note that I wanted an English only version, I wasn't against this idea.

sarah31 wrote:

one final thing i agree with Xentac that there should be ONE openoffice package and it should be a the current one (once it can be compiled under gcc 3.4) but with full language support added.

one OO package - agreed
But... with full language support included? Couldn't this be done in a separate package? I wouldn't like to download twice as much just to delete half of it afterwards.

sarah31 wrote:

trust me ximian is nothing but trouble.

I'm currently using the binaries from OO as tpowa suggested. They work pretty well, although there's nowhere written that I had to run "setup" and choose Workstation afterwards, just to create some symlinks and not install it again (226MB) (I think you get the same result if running "setup -net"). (this is a temporary working solution).

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-06-09 09:29:19

sarah31 wrote:

...it is also not difficult to add languages and i just don't understand why this had/had not been done by the current maintainer. ...
so accusing developers of being prejudice because they have not taken the time out to rebuild a very difficult packeg is just not right.

Personally, I kindly asked the oo-package maintainer to integrate other languages. His response was, he was to lazy to add it, and english was enough for his taste. I was astonished about his answer, as others where as well. Because the maintainer refused to support other languages then english, non english users are in a dilemma, wether to run the original oo setups, or create a local package (and recreate it each time oo is updated), or create another package to share it. Last option: ask your government to discontinue native language and have english to be the new native tongue ...
So, as native language writers are not supported by genuine oo package, they turn away to find other solutions - what else should they do?

I never accused developpers.

For my taste, candy ximian office in native language is superior compared to english only genuine open office.

sarah31 · 2004-06-09 10:52:14

Pink Chick,

that is suprising i am an advocate for better language support. however, while ximian's OO may be prettier i worry about exclusion based on the depends. but i suppose an unofficial official package of it is okay.

IceRam,

unfortunately language support has to be built in i don't think it can be modular. i recognize though that it would be annoying to download a larger package and then delete files. that being said i am an advocate for having more language support rather than less.

i suppose based on what Pink Chick says though arguing about it is moot. but at least our concerns are out there now. sorry to both of you for being rather harsh with my tone.

Dusty · 2004-06-09 15:46:06

Pink Chick wrote:

Personally, I kindly asked the oo-package maintainer to integrate other languages. His response was, he was to lazy to add it, and english was enough for his taste.

Arjan said that? I expect he must have meant it as a joke.

The only real reason the developers haven't done absolutely everything that is wanted of them is that they don't have time. Day jobs and school, unfortunately, take a priority over Arch.

Perhaps if somebody could *offer* some help on putting multi-language support into OpenOffice, rather than *requesting*? I'll take Sarah's word for it that its not much fun to build; you can't blame a developer who's maintaining 192 packages for procrastinating on this kind of heavy task.

I predict Sarah's reply will be "I put in a lot of time when I was a developer etc etc, if you don't have the time to commit, don't volunteer, etc etc." The problem is that there wouldn't be any volunteers and Arch would be dead.

Dusty

Bobonov · 2004-06-09 16:29:30

If openoffice give trouble compiling with the new gcc just set the flags at compile time to chose the appropiate c standard.
Directly from man gcc

       -std=
           Determine the language standard.  This option is currently only
           supported when compiling C or C++.  A value for this option must be
           provided; possible values are

           c89
           iso9899:1990
               ISO C90 (same as -ansi).

           iso9899:199409
               ISO C90 as modified in amendment 1.

           c99
           c9x
           iso9899:1999
           iso9899:199x
               ISO C99.  Note that this standard is not yet fully supported;
               see <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html> for more infor-
               mation.  The names c9x and iso9899:199x are deprecated.

           gnu89
               Default, ISO C90 plus GNU extensions (including some C99 fea-
               tures).

           gnu99
           gnu9x
               ISO C99 plus GNU extensions.  When ISO C99 is fully implemented
               in GCC, this will become the default.  The name gnu9x is depre-
               cated.

           c++98
               The 1998 ISO C++ standard plus amendments.

           gnu++98
               The same as -std=c++98 plus GNU extensions.  This is the
               default for C++ code.

           Even when this option is not specified, you can still use some of
           the features of newer standards in so far as they do not conflict
           with previous C standards.  For example, you may use "__restrict__"
           even when -std=c99 is not specified.

           The -std options specifying some version of ISO C have the same
           effects as -ansi, except that features that were not in ISO C90 but
           are in the specified version (for example, // comments and the
           "inline" keyword in ISO C99) are not disabled.

Bobonov · 2004-06-09 16:34:48

In the forum there was already a discussion about updating (not multilanguage) openoffice, it is still at version rc1.
I remeber that the pkg mantainer said that he have trouble recompiling openoffice with gcc 3.4.
I think is the same answer for other openoffice in other language. I think and hope that Pinkchick had a joke answer.

sarah31 · 2004-06-09 19:03:21

Dusty wrote:

Perhaps if somebody could *offer* some help on putting multi-language support into OpenOffice, rather than *requesting*? I'll take Sarah's word for it that its not much fun to build; you can't blame a developer who's maintaining 192 packages for procrastinating on this kind of heavy task.

i was overjoyed when i finaaly got this to build back when i first got it made (1.0.3). the next version up was a fun challenge. after that it was a monkey on my back. you first had to get it to compile and half a day to a week later and several compiles later the last thing one wants to do is recompile with langauge support (not that it would botch the compile).

I predict Sarah's reply will be "I put in a lot of time when I was a developer etc etc, if you don't have the time to commit, don't volunteer, etc etc." The problem is that there wouldn't be any volunteers and Arch would be dead.

i doubt you would find anyone willing to just maintain OOo. personally when i reinstalled i though for about half a second about getting more involved again but to be honest helping people and burning up my time for other people who genrallly ask for more as soon as you are done was becoming too much for me. right now i figutre it is better for me to just whine and bitch at people here and keep working at my own projects (php and web development, BASH, C, Applescript, Cocoa, and spending too much money on comics)

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-06-09 19:06:17

"DustyPerhaps if somebody could *offer* some help on putting multi-language support into OpenOffice, rather than *requesting*?[/quote wrote:

I am not a oo-package-master-coder, and don't have the time to learn the trick on how to integrate languages in it. Sorry for that, I spend a lot of time otherwise on archlinux and linux itself, beneath my other jobs. All I could offer is to compile and transfer the package if some one could do the PKGBUILD job. Further more, I would place it to any storage I would be told to place it.
Unfortunately, my powerful computer is running WinXP (there is a silly kobil kernel 2.6 module bug, and I badly need this peace of hardware, while the only linux kobil is thinking of is suse :evil:) so I would have to take my laptop to do the job. Maybe I should place it in a fridge while compiling ... what would you suggest?
But, if this was help enough, I am yours.

Frumpus ♥ addict
[mu'.krum.pus], [frum.pus]

Arch Linux

#26 2004-05-31 13:28:24

Re: Ximian openoffice

#27 2004-05-31 13:59:19

Re: Ximian openoffice

#28 2004-05-31 18:11:39

Re: Ximian openoffice

#29 2004-06-09 05:45:06

Re: Ximian openoffice

#30 2004-06-09 09:17:11

Re: Ximian openoffice

#31 2004-06-09 09:29:19

Re: Ximian openoffice

#32 2004-06-09 10:52:14

Re: Ximian openoffice

#33 2004-06-09 15:46:06

Re: Ximian openoffice

#34 2004-06-09 16:29:30

Re: Ximian openoffice

#35 2004-06-09 16:34:48

Re: Ximian openoffice

#36 2004-06-09 19:03:21

Re: Ximian openoffice

#37 2004-06-09 19:06:17

Re: Ximian openoffice

#38 2004-06-09 19:16:24

Re: Ximian openoffice

#39 2004-06-09 19:20:14

Re: Ximian openoffice

#40 2004-06-09 20:09:16

Re: Ximian openoffice

#41 2004-06-10 00:26:03

Re: Ximian openoffice

#42 2004-06-10 05:29:41

Re: Ximian openoffice

#43 2004-06-20 12:06:09

Re: Ximian openoffice

#44 2004-07-28 07:22:12

Re: Ximian openoffice

#45 2004-07-28 14:49:23

Re: Ximian openoffice

Board footer