[Klug-general] OOo ver 3 incompatibility
michael.rentell at ntlworld.com
Thu Dec 11 14:59:05 UTC 2008
That sounds like a kind invitation from MikeE, but I don't undestand
most of it. In the meantime I have taken all my Ooo off my machine
because I read a bit on page 19 of the most recent (Jan 2009!) edition
of Linux Format which says there is a different fork of Ooo available
called Go-oo. But it needs a machine free of previous versions.
I've visited that web-site and tried downloading stuff but all I get is
a tiny rpm which installs to not much at all. There appears to be
something .yum but I don't know what a yum is. You mention it so perhaps
you could advise me what to do.
Because the rpm didn't seem to work for me I downladed the tarball and
unapcked it and ./configure'd it but that failed with several bits
missing (whatever they are).
I get the feeling if I could do this yum thing I could get a different
version of Ooo ver3 and I could see if it would run on my PC without
crashing part of KDE.
Mike Evans wrote:
> I'm pleased to report OOo working well with Fedora 10 and using using
> the latest nVidia driver package. (At least with an initial test - but
> I did run OOo Presentation last night for quite a while.)
> You are right in that there is a dependency on Java for something. (Not
> too surprising for something maintained by Sun I guess) and according to
> yum running on F8, where I have OOo 2 installed:
> openoffice.org-core.1386 requires libjawt.so which on my system is
> provided by java-1.7.0-icedtea.i586 18.104.22.168-0.19.b21.snapshot.fc8 and
> also by libgcj.i386 4.1.2-33. Forgive the Fedora 8 and OOo2 references -
> I've not moved my email over to my F10 installation yet, but I presume
> the dependencies for OOo3 will be similar. If you think it will help
> I'll check the dependencies over on F10 this evening, but the best thing
> would be to look up the dependencies on your own system and check how
> they are being met. It may be that there are choices and that you can
> influence the choice.
> Provided your package manager or rpm installer finds that an appropriate
> version of libjawt.so is available it would not have commented at
> installation time, so that would explain why I didn't get anything
> further. I would have expected it to complain if some dependency could
> not be met.
More information about the Kent