Openoffice

Bobonov · 2004-06-16 16:04:25

Ok do not kill me, please.
So here we are again with openoffice, I want to speak about that because we are already in late on the current version and also because it seem that 1.1.2 is coming out.
http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/office/openoffice/stable/1.1.2/
I think this is a compile of version 1.1.1p1.

I think soon or later we have to find a solution for it, so lets have a serious discussion about it and try to put all experiences on the field to sort out a solution
The situation is the following: openoffice do not compile due to gcc version.

In another tread I suggested to try with option -std to specify the c standard to use for the interpreter.

Dusty · 2004-06-16 17:08:12

Submit a working PKGBUILD.

sarah31 · 2004-06-16 23:10:48

Dusty wrote:

Submit a working PKGBUILD.

sounds like a solution to me. personally i don't want to spend any more time on OO than i already have .... especially if i know i don't even have a chance of compiling it before i even start. knoowing this i can tell you it would be at least two days to get a build working.

regardless how mean it sounds if people want a fixed OO and the maintainer is not about to supply one then it is up to those users to suggest a solution.

Bobonov · 2004-06-17 05:50:43

it is up to those users to suggest a solution.

That's why I hopened this tread again.
I know that openoffice is a tedious work and I could try to find some solution (as well as other), but before starting I want to see other people inpunt, that's why we are a comunity, coullaborative work.
I know from other tread there are people tring to compile it for other language but I do not know if they were able.
So before going in a 2 days compiling just share opinion/suggestion.
This post it is not about forcing the mantainer to do a miracle, it is more about users find a solution.
As I said several times arch user are not all Linux newbie, many of the are very very experienced developer.

Submit a working PKGBUILD

Sorry but this to me do not sound as serious answer, not either a joke. It is an answer, a bit unpolite, just to close the question.
If people do not have serious proposal to something that is going to be a problem, please.......
The result of this post should be a working PKGBUILD because as far as we know actually there is no one.

sarah31 · 2004-06-17 07:21:15

some suggestions:

-make the changes to the current PKGBUILD that will allow one to download and start the build process.

-post errors here or email between the people that work on it.

i also suggest that you make no other changes to patches and other build parts in order to find out if they are even needed anymore. if you do need to make new patches try and google for patches or solutions. if the current version has been out for a month or so there is bound to have been some distro or individual that has tried to build it with gcc 3.4.

while a little curt i think that this is what dusty was trying to say in a very word efficient fashion.

Bobonov · 2004-06-17 10:02:50

Actually I am tring to see at gentoo ebuild. I has support for native language build too.
But I do not know if it work with gcc 3.4. It check for gcc 3.2 and 3.3, so I hope it should work also with gcc 3.4 because it is the latest ebuild. But I know also thet this is a 3.4 strictly related problem.
I want also try to look at openoffice mailing list, did anybody checked there for gcc 3.4 issue?

sarah31 · 2004-06-17 14:53:52

well with respect to native language builds the Open Office Documents mention how to do it too. it is not a complex process it just takes several hours to get to that point . it is something that gets done after you have compiled OOo.

ebuilds may help you or not they are alot different from when I used them when i initially built OOo back around v.1.0.2. what will help you, most of the time, is the patches they have applied. but be forwarded that alot of the time patches from other distro are not always problem solving more than they are customizations.

loveslave · 2004-06-18 20:02:14

Thank you for researching this. I also miss OOo 1.1.1 ir 2

Bobonov · 2004-06-19 06:47:18

Well 1.1.2 is officially out with source too.
About native langauge, I think is usefull for everybody having a PKGBUILD in which you have just to specify ITA or 39 to compile your localized version.. Exactly becase it is very simple is no problem to implementhis, naturally after having office compiling

Bobonov · 2004-07-07 21:20:00

I have done lot of research in the web and there is no way to compile openoffice under gcc 3.4, or at least I did not find solutions.
As you can see
http://tools.openoffice.org/builds/
It is write that the support on gcc 3.4 is on the way but no estimated date are specified.

I see only 2 solution to update openoffice package untill we have a working version for gcc 3.4:
1) make a package out of the binary
2) install a clean archlinux and compile under it, but I doubt about linking to library
I think the best one is the first solution

sarah31 · 2004-07-07 22:26:55

well what exactly is the issue? i cannot see significant changes in the c++ standards that one would not be able to create patches for. it is very rare that OOo compiles without patching in the first place .... even if it is know to compile with certain compilers. (note the sed lines in th current PKGBUILD which have been there to correct some dumb errors in a few successive releases)

tpowa · 2004-07-08 16:38:09

@ bobonov
have a look at that for binary package:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=4844

Arch Linux

#1 2004-06-16 16:04:25

Openoffice

#2 2004-06-16 17:08:12

Re: Openoffice

#3 2004-06-16 23:10:48

Re: Openoffice

#4 2004-06-17 05:50:43

Re: Openoffice

#5 2004-06-17 07:21:15

Re: Openoffice

#6 2004-06-17 10:02:50

Re: Openoffice

#7 2004-06-17 14:53:52

Re: Openoffice

#8 2004-06-18 20:02:14

Re: Openoffice

#9 2004-06-19 06:47:18

Re: Openoffice

#10 2004-07-07 21:20:00

Re: Openoffice

#11 2004-07-07 22:26:55

Re: Openoffice

#12 2004-07-08 16:38:09

Re: Openoffice

Board footer