[Klug-general] OOo ver 3 incompatibility

Mike Rentell 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 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.
> MikeE

More information about the Kent mailing list