Re: Linux builds
Hi Andre, * On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:57:35AM +0800, Andre Fischer wrote: Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Old basis package set remaining is the default behaviour, at least tested with OOo 3.0.0. On Fedora 16: - install OOo 3.0.0 (OOO300_m9 9358) - install OOo 3.1.1 (OOO310_m19 9420) 1) there is an issue with the desktop integration, same for AOO 2) the old basis3.0 remains: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 All ooobasis3.0 packages are kept. Strange. Here is what I would expect would happen on an update: - There is one top-level or meta package that has dependencies on all the other packages (directly or indirectly) - This meta package of OOo3.? is replaced by AOO3.4 - The packages of OOo3.? are not referenced anymore and get removed automatically. The new packages are installed. Everything is find. So one of the following things goes wrong: - The old meta package is not removed because the new one has no relationship to it (maybe because of a different application name) - The old meta package is removed but some other package keeps a reference to one of OOo3.? base packages. - Something else that I did not think of yet (I am currently on a business trip and am still adapting to the new time zone) There are different issues. The main one is that the package name containes %OOOBASEVERSION Example: module = gid_Module_Prg_Wrt_Bin main/setup_native/source/packinfo/packinfo_office.txt#88 packagename = %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-writer %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX -- ooobasis main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst#20 %OOOBASEVERSION -- 3.4 main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst#7 I have installed following packages: ooobasis3.4-writer 3.4.0-9590 ooobasis3.0-writer 3.0.0-9358 ooobasis3.1-writer 3.1.1-9420 ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9502 ooobasis3.3-writer 3.3.0-9567 Because the *package* name is different, they are indeed different packages, ooobasis3.2-writer is *not* regarded as an update for ooobasis3.1-writer, and so on. ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9502 can only be updated by a package with the same name, examples: ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9503 (increase BUILD in main/solenv/inc/minor.mk#23) ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.2-9502 etc. Note that I'm not sure if this is an issue, or it is the way it was designed with the idea of having different basis installations. The only solution in this strange design is to declare a package obsoleting the other ones, for example ooobasis3.4-writer obsoleting ooobasis3.0-writer ooobasis3.1-writer ooobasis3.2-writer ooobasis3.3-writer This can be done using linuxreplaces in the files on main/setup_native/source/packinfo/ I've tried this is success (though minimal testing): http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-fix.txt There are some caveats: * A meta package is not enough, this has to be done on a per-packages way, not only to be in the safe side (if the user tries to install some package without the rest), but mainly because previous versions (and the current one) do not have a *real* meta package. The package openoffice.org3 gid_Module_Root_Brand does not provide every package OOo shipped in the tar file, see next point. * gid_Module_Root_Brand requires %UREPACKAGEPREFIX-ure %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core01 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core02 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core03 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core04 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core05 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core06 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core07 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-images When you install openoffice.org3 from AOO 3.4.0 over openoffice.org3 from 3.3.0, it only gets updated because they have the same name. It also updates the URE (due to same name, too). It installs basis core01-07 and basis images, but does not update/remove previous packages because the name is different. Besides, this sort of meta package does not install the office modules (writer, calc, etc). * Apache OpenOffice orphans some packages that are no longer present: In the basis layer: oooimprovement kde-integration [yes, AOO has no KDE integration] In the brand layer, OOo 3.3 installed by default 3 dictionaries: openoffice.org3-dict-en openoffice.org3-dict-es openoffice.org3-dict-fr These can all be obsoleted in openoffice.org3 In short, gid_Module_Root_Brand can be made a real meta package, and linuxreplaces is the only solution to remove old basis packages. (I still didn't look at the desktop integration
Re: Linux builds
On 4/11/12 2:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Andre, * On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:57:35AM +0800, Andre Fischer wrote: Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Old basis package set remaining is the default behaviour, at least tested with OOo 3.0.0. On Fedora 16: - install OOo 3.0.0 (OOO300_m9 9358) - install OOo 3.1.1 (OOO310_m19 9420) 1) there is an issue with the desktop integration, same for AOO 2) the old basis3.0 remains: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 All ooobasis3.0 packages are kept. Strange. Here is what I would expect would happen on an update: - There is one top-level or meta package that has dependencies on all the other packages (directly or indirectly) - This meta package of OOo3.? is replaced by AOO3.4 - The packages of OOo3.? are not referenced anymore and get removed automatically. The new packages are installed. Everything is find. So one of the following things goes wrong: - The old meta package is not removed because the new one has no relationship to it (maybe because of a different application name) - The old meta package is removed but some other package keeps a reference to one of OOo3.? base packages. - Something else that I did not think of yet (I am currently on a business trip and am still adapting to the new time zone) There are different issues. The main one is that the package name containes %OOOBASEVERSION Example: module = gid_Module_Prg_Wrt_Bin main/setup_native/source/packinfo/packinfo_office.txt#88 packagename = %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-writer %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX -- ooobasis main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst#20 %OOOBASEVERSION -- 3.4 main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst#7 I have installed following packages: ooobasis3.4-writer 3.4.0-9590 ooobasis3.0-writer 3.0.0-9358 ooobasis3.1-writer 3.1.1-9420 ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9502 ooobasis3.3-writer 3.3.0-9567 Because the *package* name is different, they are indeed different packages, ooobasis3.2-writer is *not* regarded as an update for ooobasis3.1-writer, and so on. ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9502 can only be updated by a package with the same name, examples: ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9503 (increase BUILD in main/solenv/inc/minor.mk#23) ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.2-9502 etc. Note that I'm not sure if this is an issue, or it is the way it was designed with the idea of having different basis installations. The only solution in this strange design is to declare a package obsoleting the other ones, for example ooobasis3.4-writer obsoleting ooobasis3.0-writer ooobasis3.1-writer ooobasis3.2-writer ooobasis3.3-writer This can be done using linuxreplaces in the files on main/setup_native/source/packinfo/ I've tried this is success (though minimal testing): http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-fix.txt There are some caveats: * A meta package is not enough, this has to be done on a per-packages way, not only to be in the safe side (if the user tries to install some package without the rest), but mainly because previous versions (and the current one) do not have a *real* meta package. The package openoffice.org3 gid_Module_Root_Brand does not provide every package OOo shipped in the tar file, see next point. * gid_Module_Root_Brand requires %UREPACKAGEPREFIX-ure %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core01 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core02 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core03 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core04 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core05 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core06 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core07 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-images When you install openoffice.org3 from AOO 3.4.0 over openoffice.org3 from 3.3.0, it only gets updated because they have the same name. It also updates the URE (due to same name, too). It installs basis core01-07 and basis images, but does not update/remove previous packages because the name is different. Besides, this sort of meta package does not install the office modules (writer, calc, etc). * Apache OpenOffice orphans some packages that are no longer present: In the basis layer: oooimprovement kde-integration [yes, AOO has no KDE integration] In the brand layer, OOo 3.3 installed by default 3 dictionaries: openoffice.org3-dict-en openoffice.org3-dict-es openoffice.org3-dict-fr These can all be obsoleted in openoffice.org3 In short, gid_Module_Root_Brand can be made a real meta package, and linuxreplaces is the only solution to remove old basis packages. (I still
Re: Linux builds
On 04/11/2012 07:45 AM, � wrote: On 4/11/12 2:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Andre, * On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:57:35AM +0800, Andre Fischer wrote: Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Old basis package set remaining is the default behaviour, at least tested with OOo 3.0.0. On Fedora 16: - install OOo 3.0.0 (OOO300_m9 9358) - install OOo 3.1.1 (OOO310_m19 9420) 1) there is an issue with the desktop integration, same for AOO 2) the old basis3.0 remains: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 All ooobasis3.0 packages are kept. Strange. Here is what I would expect would happen on an update: - There is one top-level or meta package that has dependencies on all the other packages (directly or indirectly) - This meta package of OOo3.? is replaced by AOO3.4 - The packages of OOo3.? are not referenced anymore and get removed automatically. The new packages are installed. Everything is find. So one of the following things goes wrong: - The old meta package is not removed because the new one has no relationship to it (maybe because of a different application name) - The old meta package is removed but some other package keeps a reference to one of OOo3.? base packages. - Something else that I did not think of yet (I am currently on a business trip and am still adapting to the new time zone) There are different issues. The main one is that the package name containes %OOOBASEVERSION Example: module = gid_Module_Prg_Wrt_Bin main/setup_native/source/packinfo/packinfo_office.txt#88 packagename = %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-writer %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX -- ooobasis main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst#20 %OOOBASEVERSION -- 3.4 main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst#7 I have installed following packages: ooobasis3.4-writer 3.4.0-9590 ooobasis3.0-writer 3.0.0-9358 ooobasis3.1-writer 3.1.1-9420 ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9502 ooobasis3.3-writer 3.3.0-9567 Because the *package* name is different, they are indeed different packages, ooobasis3.2-writer is *not* regarded as an update for ooobasis3.1-writer, and so on. ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9502 can only be updated by a package with the same name, examples: ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.1-9503 (increase BUILD in main/solenv/inc/minor.mk#23) ooobasis3.2-writer 3.2.2-9502 etc. Note that I'm not sure if this is an issue, or it is the way it was designed with the idea of having different basis installations. The only solution in this strange design is to declare a package obsoleting the other ones, for example ooobasis3.4-writer obsoleting ooobasis3.0-writer ooobasis3.1-writer ooobasis3.2-writer ooobasis3.3-writer This can be done using linuxreplaces in the files on main/setup_native/source/packinfo/ I've tried this is success (though minimal testing): http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-fix.txt There are some caveats: * A meta package is not enough, this has to be done on a per-packages way, not only to be in the safe side (if the user tries to install some package without the rest), but mainly because previous versions (and the current one) do not have a *real* meta package. The package openoffice.org3 gid_Module_Root_Brand does not provide every package OOo shipped in the tar file, see next point. * gid_Module_Root_Brand requires %UREPACKAGEPREFIX-ure %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core01 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core02 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core03 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core04 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core05 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core06 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-core07 %BASISPACKAGEPREFIX%OOOBASEVERSION-images When you install openoffice.org3 from AOO 3.4.0 over openoffice.org3 from 3.3.0, it only gets updated because they have the same name. It also updates the URE (due to same name, too). It installs basis core01-07 and basis images, but does not update/remove previous packages because the name is different. Besides, this sort of meta package does not install the office modules (writer, calc, etc). * Apache OpenOffice orphans some packages that are no longer present: In the basis layer: oooimprovement kde-integration [yes, AOO has no KDE integration] Ariel -- Well...my kde integration seems to be provided in: openoffice.org3.4-suse-menus-3.4-9590.noarch.rpm from the desktop-integration directory using the older kde3 integration which works just fine. But maybe this is referring to is some older holdover that is no longer viable. In the brand layer, OOo 3.3 installed by default 3 dictionaries: openoffice.org3-dict-en openoffice.org3-dict-es
Re: Linux builds
Hi Kay, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:28:38PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: * Apache OpenOffice orphans some packages that are no longer present: In the basis layer: oooimprovement kde-integration [yes, AOO has no KDE integration] Ariel -- Well...my kde integration seems to be provided in: openoffice.org3.4-suse-menus-3.4-9590.noarch.rpm from the desktop-integration directory using the older kde3 integration which works just fine. But maybe this is referring to is some older holdover that is no longer viable. KDE integration is the package ooobasis3.3-kde-integration It provides /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.3/program/kdebe1.uno.so source code on main/shell/source/backends/kdebe It is the shell/desktop integration, allowing to get some information from the KDE desktop env., like the default external mailer program, etc. See main/shell/source/backends/kdebe/kdeaccess.cxx#51 main/shell/source/backends/kdebe/kdebackend.cxx#180 And I also mean the VCL plugin that makes AOO look like a KDE 3/4 application, and the KDE file dialog. KDE 4 was never integrated in OOo (there was a CWS trying to do so), and last time I tried to compile with kde4 enabled, the plug-in was rather broken (we need someone to maintain it, otherwise it's death code). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgplOaAUrVDhW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux builds
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:18:14AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: In short, gid_Module_Root_Brand can be made a real meta package, and linuxreplaces is the only solution to remove old basis packages. (I still didn't look at the desktop integration package issue) The desktop integration is built on trunk/main/sysui without the epm thingy. The root problem was the same: file $FILE from install of openoffice.org3.1-redhat-menus-3.1-9420.noarch conflicts with file from package openoffice.org3.0-redhat-menus-3.0-9354.noarch The package names are different, so a newer package is not regarded by default as update to the older package: openoffice.org3.0-redhat-menus openoffice.org3.1-redhat-menus The solution: openoffice.org3.4-redhat-menus must obsolete the following packages openoffice.org3.0-redhat-menus openoffice.org3.1-redhat-menus openoffice.org3.2-redhat-menus openoffice.org3.3-redhat-menus http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/rpm-desktop-integration-fixed.txt Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgptRm3y6zqqs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux builds
On 4/10/12 4:33 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Lily, On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:20:50AM +0800, xia zhao wrote: Ariel, Do you means user have to remove the old packages manually? I don't mean anything, I'm just describing the situation: that's the way I has been working since OOo 3.0.0 It isn't reasonable for end users. Yes. Quite strange nobody seemed to complained about it (I haven't found previous bug reports about it). Though keeping the old package is default behavior, I couldn't understand the reason. Me neither. May be this was the design behind the 3 layer OOo, I've no idea. If just want to keeping the previous configuration etc, is it possible to split and erase other packages? No matter which reason, back to the upgrade problem, we need find one way to resolve the couldn't launch or crash problem. Looking at the backtrace, the might have been introduced by changes on the extension handling, but I'm just guessing (I don't have a build with debugging symbols right now). I agree that the issue is not nice and also happended in earlier versions, at least the desktop integration part. The extension problem can be related to the changes we made in the extension manager... I assume it will take some time to find a good solution. I am no expert in this area but would it be possible to define a meta package that do some clean unintall of older basis packages and desktop integrations? For the future we should rework the 3 layer office asap and should ensure that we can do a smooth and always working upgrade installation. For now we have at least a workaround of a manually uninstall if the meta package wouldn't work. Just an idea Juergen
Re: Linux builds
Juergen, Is this anyplace we can record this important known issues and let end user aware it? Like release notes or somethings else like technical note etc? Best regards, Lily 2012/4/10 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com On 4/10/12 4:33 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Lily, On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:20:50AM +0800, xia zhao wrote: Ariel, Do you means user have to remove the old packages manually? I don't mean anything, I'm just describing the situation: that's the way I has been working since OOo 3.0.0 It isn't reasonable for end users. Yes. Quite strange nobody seemed to complained about it (I haven't found previous bug reports about it). Though keeping the old package is default behavior, I couldn't understand the reason. Me neither. May be this was the design behind the 3 layer OOo, I've no idea. If just want to keeping the previous configuration etc, is it possible to split and erase other packages? No matter which reason, back to the upgrade problem, we need find one way to resolve the couldn't launch or crash problem. Looking at the backtrace, the might have been introduced by changes on the extension handling, but I'm just guessing (I don't have a build with debugging symbols right now). I agree that the issue is not nice and also happended in earlier versions, at least the desktop integration part. The extension problem can be related to the changes we made in the extension manager... I assume it will take some time to find a good solution. I am no expert in this area but would it be possible to define a meta package that do some clean unintall of older basis packages and desktop integrations? For the future we should rework the 3 layer office asap and should ensure that we can do a smooth and always working upgrade installation. For now we have at least a workaround of a manually uninstall if the meta package wouldn't work. Just an idea Juergen
Re: Linux builds
El día 10 de abril de 2012 09:12, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com escribió: I am no expert in this area but would it be possible to define a meta package that do some clean unintall of older basis packages and desktop integrations? Some time ago, openSUSE replaced their go-oo build with LibO (without a warning to the users...). The update cleaned previous installs so some kind of scripting magic associated with the new packages should be possible. Regards Ricardo
Re: Linux builds
On 04/10/2012 03:05 AM, RGB ES wrote: El d�a 10 de abril de 2012 09:12, J�rgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com escribi�: I am no expert in this area but would it be possible to define a meta package that do some clean unintall of older basis packages and desktop integrations? Some time ago, openSUSE replaced their go-oo build with LibO (without a warning to the users...). The update cleaned previous installs so some kind of scripting magic associated with the new packages should be possible. I haven't tried to install AOO in update mode by folloiwng these instructions: (issue 119162 -- https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162) * upgrade to 3.4 by command: rpm -Uvh o*.rpm (I installed it in a separate directory as a new install a while back.) I will do this today, but... if there IS a problem with installing over 3.3, is there some reason we can't tell Linux users to de-install 3.3 first before installing 3.4 as part of the release notes? Scripting this de-installation might be a bit tricky depending on distro, but all Linux users should know how to de-install on their own. and re openSuSE and maybe others -- the symlink from the original OOo main, soffice, noramlly /usr/bin/soffice, will still need to be investigated -- maybe also include in release notes. Regards Ricardo -- MzK Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: Linux builds
2012/4/9 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com On 4/9/12 1:31 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 07:54:35AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=119168https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~**arielch/packages/r1310206/.http://people.apache.org/%7Earielch/packages/r1310206/. .. Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! All packages are now uploaded, signed, and with its MD5/SHA-1/SHA512 checksums. SDK: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 1 lang = 4 packages Full install sets: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages Language Packs: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages TOTAL 132 packages11 Gb (10485780)44:39:46 Thanks Ariel Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=119162https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. Juergen et * -- I just confirmed this problem with upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 and updated the issue. I don't feel it's a release blocker but does merit attention in release notes and/or README for this release. Even in the best of circumstances, stuff happens. And, with the intersection of LO and OO on my system, well, who knows...you do indeed NEED to deinstall 3.3 first to get 3.4 to work in the default installation area. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Juergen -- MzK Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: Linux builds
On 10.04.2012 07:12, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:16:38PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Old basis package set remaining is the default behaviour, at least tested with OOo 3.0.0. On Fedora 16: - install OOo 3.0.0 (OOO300_m9 9358) - install OOo 3.1.1 (OOO310_m19 9420) 1) there is an issue with the desktop integration, same for AOO 2) the old basis3.0 remains: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 All ooobasis3.0 packages are kept. Strange. Here is what I would expect would happen on an update: - There is one top-level or meta package that has dependencies on all the other packages (directly or indirectly) - This meta package of OOo3.? is replaced by AOO3.4 - The packages of OOo3.? are not referenced anymore and get removed automatically. The new packages are installed. Everything is find. So one of the following things goes wrong: - The old meta package is not removed because the new one has no relationship to it (maybe because of a different application name) - The old meta package is removed but some other package keeps a reference to one of OOo3.? base packages. - Something else that I did not think of yet (I am currently on a business trip and am still adapting to the new time zone) Regards, Andre [...]
Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures
Guys, Please let me know where I can get some more troubleshooting info for this install? I have found the docs on the Ooo 3.3 Wiki and I'm now getting the following when I run the sudo commands at the desk-integ dir step. /Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 162333 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian-menus (from openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/mime/packages/openoffice.org.xml', which is also in package libreoffice-common 1:3.4.4-0ubuntu1 dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe) /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Errors were encountered while processing: openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb I have tried removing the openoffice.org.xml and that had no effect. Please help. :D Greg From: Greg Roberts lookfortherab...@yahoo.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2012 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Linux builds Guys, I'm not sure if this the correct thread to ask. But, I downloaded the Full Install set from the following URL: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-fullsets the Linux Intel Deb package r1303653 and have extracted the tar ball. I now need to now the install order of the deb packages for Ubuntu 11.10, Linux Kernel 3.0.0-17 generic and GNOME 3.2.1. Thanks Greg Roberts From: Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2012 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Linux builds On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 07:54:35AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! All packages are now uploaded, signed, and with its MD5/SHA-1/SHA512 checksums. SDK: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 1 lang = 4 packages Full install sets: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages Language Packs: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages TOTAL 132 packages 11 Gb (10485780) 44:39:46 Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, there are twoe ways to solve it: Either you deinstall the version of your distribution (here: Ubuntu) completely Or you don't install the desktop-integration and do it manually. If you install a software beside your distribution you should know what you do. Otherwise you can step in trouble. Regards Mechtilde Am 09.04.2012 09:16, schrieb Greg Roberts: Guys, Please let me know where I can get some more troubleshooting info for this install? I have found the docs on the Ooo 3.3 Wiki and I'm now getting the following when I run the sudo commands at the desk-integ dir step. /Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 162333 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian-menus (from openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/mime/packages/openoffice.org.xml', which is also in package libreoffice-common 1:3.4.4-0ubuntu1 dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe) /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Errors were encountered while processing: openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb I have tried removing the openoffice.org.xml and that had no effect. Please help. :D Greg From: Greg Roberts lookfortherab...@yahoo.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2012 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Linux builds Guys, I'm not sure if this the correct thread to ask. But, I downloaded the Full Install set from the following URL: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-fullsets the Linux Intel Deb package r1303653 and have extracted the tar ball. I now need to now the install order of the deb packages for Ubuntu 11.10, Linux Kernel 3.0.0-17 generic and GNOME 3.2.1. Thanks Greg Roberts From: Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2012 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Linux builds On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 07:54:35AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! All packages are now uploaded, signed, and with its MD5/SHA-1/SHA512 checksums. SDK: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 1 lang = 4 packages Full install sets: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages Language Packs: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages TOTAL 132 packages11 Gb (10485780)44:39:46 Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+Ckd0ACgkQucZfh1OziStbJwCgh8gvLxjId9Ea8bZrjhIn6ONp WrUAni6g4OVprwIZS+MfcI/dMfANvhlG =2LZZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux builds
El día 9 de abril de 2012 06:43, Greg Roberts lookfortherab...@yahoo.com escribió: Guys, I'm not sure if this the correct thread to ask. But, I downloaded the Full Install set from the following URL: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-fullsets the Linux Intel Deb package r1303653 and have extracted the tar ball. I now need to now the install order of the deb packages for Ubuntu 11.10, Linux Kernel 3.0.0-17 generic and GNOME 3.2.1. [Tutorial] Installing OOo on Ubuntu, Debian and Co. http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74t=68 Regards Ricardo
Re: Linux builds
On 4/9/12 1:31 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 07:54:35AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! All packages are now uploaded, signed, and with its MD5/SHA-1/SHA512 checksums. SDK: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 1 lang = 4 packages Full install sets: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages Language Packs: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages TOTAL 132 packages11 Gb (10485780)44:39:46 Thanks Ariel Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Juergen
Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures
Le Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:38:06 +0200, Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de a écrit : there are twoe ways to solve it: Either you deinstall the version of your distribution (here: Ubuntu) completely Or you don't install the desktop-integration and do it manually. If you install a software beside your distribution you should know what you do. Otherwise you can step in trouble. In fact the go-oo / LibO integration in Ubuntu has always led to such trouble. But you can still use both suites by installing them from their vanilla versions (from their web site) instead of the Ubuntu reps (see tutorial given by RGB). Hagar
Re: Linux builds
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:16:38PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Old basis package set remaining is the default behaviour, at least tested with OOo 3.0.0. On Fedora 16: - install OOo 3.0.0 (OOO300_m9 9358) - install OOo 3.1.1 (OOO310_m19 9420) 1) there is an issue with the desktop integration, same for AOO 2) the old basis3.0 remains: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 All ooobasis3.0 packages are kept. Only the following packages are updated: Updating: openoffice.org-ure openoffice.org3 openoffice.org3-base openoffice.org3-calc openoffice.org3-dict-en openoffice.org3-dict-es openoffice.org3-dict-fr openoffice.org3-draw openoffice.org3-en-US openoffice.org3-impress openoffice.org3-math openoffice.org3-writer See http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.0.0-3.1.1.txt Update to OOo 3.2.1 (000320_m18 9502) leaves: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.2 http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.1.1-3.2.1.txt Update to OOo 3.3.0 (000330_m20 9567) leaves: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.2 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.3 http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.2.1-3.3.0.txt Update AOO 340m1(Build:9590) rev.1310206 leaves: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.2 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.3 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.4 http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.3.0-AOO3.4.0.txt In every case, the application can be launched with /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice The previous desktop integration package has to be removed in order to install the new one. Conclusion: 1) leaving remaining basis packages is the behaviour since OOo 3.0.0. 2) desktop integration install failing happens since OOo 3.0.0 3) The real issue (may be unrelated to 1 and 2) is: [ariel@localhost ~]$ openoffice.org3 Application Error Fatal exception: Signal 6 Stack: /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x34f5b)[0x7fedaf274f5b] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x35f20)[0x7fedaf275f20] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x35fdf)[0x7fedaf275fdf] /lib64/libc.so.6[0x3456836300] /lib64/libc.so.6(gsignal+0x35)[0x3456836285] /lib64/libc.so.6(abort+0x17b)[0x3456837b9b] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(+0x15d3c2)[0x7fedabb9d3c2] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(+0x211c6)[0x7fedaefd81c6] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(+0x18740f)[0x7fedabbc740f] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x35fb3)[0x7fedaf275fb3] /lib64/libc.so.6[0x3456836300] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/deployment.uno.so(+0x4d8f2)[0x7fed964c08f2] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/deployment.uno.so(+0x51f2f)[0x7fed964c4f2f] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/deployment.uno.so(+0x51159)[0x7fed964c4159] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libdeploymentmisc.so(_ZN7dp_misc16syncRepositoriesERKN3com3sun4star3uno9ReferenceINS2_3ucb19XCommandEnvironmentEEE+0x308)[0x7fedae021558] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(+0x3b730)[0x7fedaeff2730] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(+0x2abe9)[0x7fedaefe1be9] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(+0x1871c8)[0x7fedabbc71c8] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(_Z6SVMainv+0x1d)[0x7fedabbc733f] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(soffice_main+0x9c)[0x7fedaf00a5fc] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice.bin(main+0xb)[0x40102b] /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xed)[0x345682169d] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice.bin[0x400f59] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice: line 122: 9294 Aborted $sd_prog/$sd_binary $@ After erasing all the old basis packages, AOO can be launched (no need to reinstall any package from AOO 3.4) http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-erase-old-basis.txt Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpiUFFgvcuCd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux builds
Ariel, Do you means user have to remove the old packages manually? It isn't reasonable for end users. Though keeping the old package is default behavior, I couldn't understand the reason. If just want to keeping the previous configuration etc, is it possible to split and erase other packages? No matter which reason, back to the upgrade problem, we need find one way to resolve the couldn't launch or crash problem. Best Regards, Lily 2012/4/10 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:16:38PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Does anybody have tested an upgrade installation with these new Linux packages and can verify the reported problem, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119162 I think we haven't noticed this problem before and I would be interested if others can confirm this problem. I will be offline for ~1 day because of traveling and I will make the call for VOTE depending on the feedback from you. Old basis package set remaining is the default behaviour, at least tested with OOo 3.0.0. On Fedora 16: - install OOo 3.0.0 (OOO300_m9 9358) - install OOo 3.1.1 (OOO310_m19 9420) 1) there is an issue with the desktop integration, same for AOO 2) the old basis3.0 remains: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 All ooobasis3.0 packages are kept. Only the following packages are updated: Updating: openoffice.org-ure openoffice.org3 openoffice.org3-base openoffice.org3-calc openoffice.org3-dict-en openoffice.org3-dict-es openoffice.org3-dict-fr openoffice.org3-draw openoffice.org3-en-US openoffice.org3-impress openoffice.org3-math openoffice.org3-writer See http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.0.0-3.1.1.txt Update to OOo 3.2.1 (000320_m18 9502) leaves: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.2 http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.1.1-3.2.1.txt Update to OOo 3.3.0 (000330_m20 9567) leaves: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.2 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.3 http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.2.1-3.3.0.txt Update AOO 340m1(Build:9590) rev.1310206 leaves: /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.0 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.1 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.2 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.3 /opt/openoffice.org/basis3.4 http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/yum-update-3.3.0-AOO3.4.0.txt In every case, the application can be launched with /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice The previous desktop integration package has to be removed in order to install the new one. Conclusion: 1) leaving remaining basis packages is the behaviour since OOo 3.0.0. 2) desktop integration install failing happens since OOo 3.0.0 3) The real issue (may be unrelated to 1 and 2) is: [ariel@localhost ~]$ openoffice.org3 Application Error Fatal exception: Signal 6 Stack: /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x34f5b)[0x7fedaf274f5b] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x35f20)[0x7fedaf275f20] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x35fdf)[0x7fedaf275fdf] /lib64/libc.so.6[0x3456836300] /lib64/libc.so.6(gsignal+0x35)[0x3456836285] /lib64/libc.so.6(abort+0x17b)[0x3456837b9b] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(+0x15d3c2)[0x7fedabb9d3c2] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(+0x211c6)[0x7fedaefd81c6] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(+0x18740f)[0x7fedabbc740f] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/ure-link/lib/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x35fb3)[0x7fedaf275fb3] /lib64/libc.so.6[0x3456836300] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/deployment.uno.so (+0x4d8f2)[0x7fed964c08f2] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/deployment.uno.so (+0x51f2f)[0x7fed964c4f2f] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/deployment.uno.so (+0x51159)[0x7fed964c4159] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libdeploymentmisc.so(_ZN7dp_misc16syncRepositoriesERKN3com3sun4star3uno9ReferenceINS2_3ucb19XCommandEnvironmentEEE+0x308)[0x7fedae021558] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(+0x3b730)[0x7fedaeff2730] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(+0x2abe9)[0x7fedaefe1be9] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(+0x1871c8)[0x7fedabbc71c8] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libvcl.so(_Z6SVMainv+0x1d)[0x7fedabbc733f] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/../basis-link/program/libsofficeapp.so(soffice_main+0x9c)[0x7fedaf00a5fc] /opt/openoffice.org3/program/soffice.bin(main+0xb)[0x40102b] /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xed)[0x345682169d]
Re: Linux builds
Hi Lily, On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:20:50AM +0800, xia zhao wrote: Ariel, Do you means user have to remove the old packages manually? I don't mean anything, I'm just describing the situation: that's the way I has been working since OOo 3.0.0 It isn't reasonable for end users. Yes. Quite strange nobody seemed to complained about it (I haven't found previous bug reports about it). Though keeping the old package is default behavior, I couldn't understand the reason. Me neither. May be this was the design behind the 3 layer OOo, I've no idea. If just want to keeping the previous configuration etc, is it possible to split and erase other packages? No matter which reason, back to the upgrade problem, we need find one way to resolve the couldn't launch or crash problem. Looking at the backtrace, the might have been introduced by changes on the extension handling, but I'm just guessing (I don't have a build with debugging symbols right now). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpBAy52P5zve.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures fixed
Thanks Mech! I was able to complete the install through some research about this on Ubuntu. It seem that the Ubuntu Software Center Canonical Partners install of Ooo 3.3 has a some LibreOffice components used and one needs to remove all the additional components that they install. The following is a list of the steps I took to remove the problem from the terminal: greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 162968 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian-menus (from openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/mime/packages/openoffice.org.xml', which is also in package libreoffice-common 1:3.4.4-0ubuntu1 dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe) /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Processing triggers for menu ... Errors were encountered while processing: openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo apt-get remove libreoffice-common Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: libreoffice-l10n-common Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. The following packages will be REMOVED: libreoffice-base-core libreoffice-common libreoffice-core libreoffice-emailmerge libreoffice-filter-binfilter libreoffice-gnome libreoffice-gtk libreoffice-java-common libreoffice-l10n-en-za libreoffice-officebean libreoffice-style-human mozilla-libreoffice mythes-en-au mythes-en-us openoffice.org-common python-uno 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 16 to remove and 0 not upgraded. After this operation, 243 MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y (Reading database ... 162967 files and directories currently installed.) Removing libreoffice-base-core ... Removing libreoffice-l10n-en-za ... Removing libreoffice-officebean ... Removing libreoffice-java-common ... Removing libreoffice-filter-binfilter ... Removing mozilla-libreoffice ... Removing libreoffice-emailmerge ... Removing python-uno ... Removing libreoffice-gnome ... Removing libreoffice-gtk ... Removing mythes-en-us ... Removing mythes-en-au ... Removing openoffice.org-common ... Removing libreoffice-style-human ... Removing libreoffice-core ... Removing libreoffice-common ... Processing triggers for man-db ... Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ... Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ... Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index... Processing triggers for gnome-menus ... Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ... Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 160147 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian-menus (from openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb) ... Setting up openoffice.org-debian-menus (3.4-9589) ... /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ... Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ... Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index... Processing triggers for gnome-menus ... Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ... Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ... Processing triggers for menu ... greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ From: Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 12:38 AM Subject: Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, there are twoe ways to solve it: Either you deinstall the version of your distribution (here: Ubuntu) completely Or you don't install the desktop-integration and do it manually. If you install a software beside your distribution you should know what you do. Otherwise you can step in trouble. Regards Mechtilde Am 09.04.2012 09:16, schrieb Greg Roberts: Guys, Please let me know where I can get some more troubleshooting info for this install? I have found the docs on the Ooo 3.3 Wiki and I'm now getting the following when I run the sudo commands at the desk-integ dir step. /Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 162333 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian
Re: Fixed Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures
Just switching the subject for easier lookup. thanks guys for the help! From: Greg Roberts lookfortherab...@yahoo.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 10:18 PM Subject: Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures fixed Thanks Mech! I was able to complete the install through some research about this on Ubuntu. It seem that the Ubuntu Software Center Canonical Partners install of Ooo 3.3 has a some LibreOffice components used and one needs to remove all the additional components that they install. The following is a list of the steps I took to remove the problem from the terminal: greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 162968 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian-menus (from openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/mime/packages/openoffice.org.xml', which is also in package libreoffice-common 1:3.4.4-0ubuntu1 dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe) /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Processing triggers for menu ... Errors were encountered while processing: openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo apt-get remove libreoffice-common Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: libreoffice-l10n-common Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. The following packages will be REMOVED: libreoffice-base-core libreoffice-common libreoffice-core libreoffice-emailmerge libreoffice-filter-binfilter libreoffice-gnome libreoffice-gtk libreoffice-java-common libreoffice-l10n-en-za libreoffice-officebean libreoffice-style-human mozilla-libreoffice mythes-en-au mythes-en-us openoffice.org-common python-uno 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 16 to remove and 0 not upgraded. After this operation, 243 MB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y (Reading database ... 162967 files and directories currently installed.) Removing libreoffice-base-core ... Removing libreoffice-l10n-en-za ... Removing libreoffice-officebean ... Removing libreoffice-java-common ... Removing libreoffice-filter-binfilter ... Removing mozilla-libreoffice ... Removing libreoffice-emailmerge ... Removing python-uno ... Removing libreoffice-gnome ... Removing libreoffice-gtk ... Removing mythes-en-us ... Removing mythes-en-au ... Removing openoffice.org-common ... Removing libreoffice-style-human ... Removing libreoffice-core ... Removing libreoffice-common ... Processing triggers for man-db ... Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ... Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ... Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index... Processing triggers for gnome-menus ... Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ... Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb (Reading database ... 160147 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking openoffice.org-debian-menus (from openoffice.org3.4-debian-menus_3.4-9589_all.deb) ... Setting up openoffice.org-debian-menus (3.4-9589) ... /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache gtk-update-icon-cache: Cache file created successfully. Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ... Processing triggers for bamfdaemon ... Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/bamf.index... Processing triggers for gnome-menus ... Processing triggers for gnome-icon-theme ... Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme ... Processing triggers for menu ... greg@greg-ThinkPad-T60:~/Downloads/en-US/DEBS/desktop-integration$ From: Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 12:38 AM Subject: Re: Linux builds follow up on Ubuntu 11.10 failures -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, there are twoe ways to solve it: Either you deinstall the version of your distribution (here: Ubuntu) completely Or you don't install the desktop-integration and do it manually. If you install a software beside your distribution you should know what you do. Otherwise you can step in trouble. Regards Mechtilde Am 09.04.2012 09:16, schrieb Greg Roberts: Guys, Please let me know where I can get some more troubleshooting info
Linux builds
Hi, I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. What do you mean about announcing developer builds in the ooo-announce mailinglist because of the high traffic here. Regards Josef -- PGP Schlüssel: 311D1055 http://keyserver.pgp.com
Re: Linux builds
On 4/8/12 12:27 PM, Josef Latt wrote: Hi, I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen What do you mean about announcing developer builds in the ooo-announce mailinglist because of the high traffic here. Regards Josef
Re: Linux builds
Hi *, 2012/4/8 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: On 4/8/12 12:27 PM, Josef Latt wrote: Hi, I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! Regards Ariel (on holidays, but checking the download remotely :) )
Re: Linux builds
Thanks Juergen, Ariel. Regards Josef Am 08.04.2012 12:54, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi *, 2012/4/8 Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com: On 4/8/12 12:27 PM, Josef Latt wrote: Hi, I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! Regards Ariel (on holidays, but checking the download remotely :) ) -- PGP Schlüssel: 311D1055 http://keyserver.pgp.com
Re: Linux builds
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 07:54:35AM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: I'm missing the linux builds revision 1309668. May be I had overseen something. yes you have, Ariel had to built on revision 1310206 because of issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Check http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1310206/... Juergen Please be patient, and wait until I announce it here (other wise you may download an incomplete package). It will take a while, it's 11 GB of packages! All packages are now uploaded, signed, and with its MD5/SHA-1/SHA512 checksums. SDK: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 1 lang = 4 packages Full install sets: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages Language Packs: 2 archs * 2 pkg formats * 16 langs = 64 packages TOTAL 132 packages11 Gb (10485780)44:39:46 Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpSVXVweGpjx.pgp Description: PGP signature
