On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 22:55 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:36 -0700, Mark Jarvis wrote:
> > Having used Open Office 1.9.x on the XP side of my box, I decided to
> > install it on the CentOS side. (The default OO was 1.1.2, for heaven's
> > sake!) I downloaded the Linux 386 version from the OO site.
> >
> > I immediately ran into problems--
> > 1) The installation instructions were for OO 1.x.
> > 2) The download appears to be source RPMs.
> >
> > Although I've used UNIX & Linux for over 15 years, there are still some
> > empty spots in my toolbox--and dealing with RPMs in one of them. (YUM is
> > SO much nicer!)
>
> Yup, but "rpmbuild --rebuild <path_to_src.rpm>" isn't too bad unless you
> get into dependency hell. I usually put the RPMS in a local repo and
> use yum to install.
>
>
> > Has anyone added OO1.9.113 to CentOS?
>
> Well, I see FC4 updates is at openoffice.org-1.9.112-1.1.0.fc4.src.rpm
>
> Rawhide/development has openoffice.org-1.9.116-3.2.0.fc5.src.rpm
>
> Will give a CentOS 4 build of .112 a shot if the DL ever finishes.
Well, speaking of dependencies - both fc4 and fc5/rawhide SRPM versions
have unsatisfied (and unsatisfiable from available packages) build-deps
on CentOS4.
Tried the m113 RPMS found via
http://download.openoffice.org/680/index-nojs.html
and they work for me on CentOS4 i386 arch, either with or without un-
installing the original packages; however on x86_64, fail to do anything
when started from the GUI. Just hangs silently when run from the
command-line until killed. Any other experiences with the openofficeorg
Beta?
Phil
