Hi,
Drew Parsons wrote:
Oh OK. But what does won't work mean?
If OOo1 crashes at start up because the OOo2 thesaurus is installed, or
vice versa, then the strong conflict makes sense.
That indeed is the case.
But if won't work simply means the OOo1 thesaurus function doesn't do
it's job
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 13:47 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Drew Parsons wrote:
Oh OK. But what does won't work mean?
If OOo1 crashes at start up because the OOo2 thesaurus is installed, or
vice versa, then the strong conflict makes sense.
That indeed is the case.
OK. The other
Hi OO Debian developers,
thanks for preparing OpenOffice.org 2 Beta2 and putting it in
experimental. I'm testing it now (1.9.125+2.0beta2-1). A couple of
matters related to package dependencies feel wrong, so I thought I'd ask
on the list before submitting bugs.
1) openoffice.org2-common
Hi,
Drew Parsons wrote:
1) openoffice.org2-common Depends: openoffice.org2-l10n-en-us
Is en-us *truly* necessary for OOo2 to work?
Yes. In some circumstances it just crashes without it.
It would make more sense to me to use a virtual package
openoffice.org2-l10n, which all the l10n
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 18:06 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[snip]
No. This is no bug. This is completely intentional. OOo1 and OOo2
thesauri are incompatile. OOo1 ones won't work in OOo2 and vice versa.
Since both use /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst for looking which thesauri
are there and each
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 18:06 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[snip]
No. This is no bug. This is completely intentional. OOo1 and OOo2
thesauri are incompatile. OOo1 ones won't work in OOo2 and vice versa.
Since both use /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst for looking which
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 19:42 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 18:06 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[snip]
No. This is no bug. This is completely intentional. OOo1 and OOo2
thesauri are incompatile. OOo1 ones won't work in OOo2 and vice versa.
Since
[ please learn how to quote properly. Thanks. ]
Hi,
Ron Johnson wrote:
So, as far as Debian is concerned, once 2 is released 1.x gets
sent into the ether, never to be allowed back in?
That's the plan. No one would want it anyway once 2.x is released...
We're the one of last big ones ones
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 20:07 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
[ please learn how to quote properly. Thanks. ]
Hi,
Ron Johnson wrote:
So, as far as Debian is concerned, once 2 is released 1.x gets
sent into the ether, never to be allowed back in?
That's the plan. No one would want it
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 20:41 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Ron Johnson wrote:
Still, I'm thinking that there will be more than a few people,
especially in organizational settings (where, as you known things
tend to change more slowly), who will want to retain OOo 1.x even
if it were
Hi,
Ron Johnson wrote:
Curiosity: why won't 1.1.5 build with sid? Is sid that out of
date (tools held back by some other dependency?), or did Sun/OOo
No. Ironically, it's apparently too up to date.
Newer gcc/binutils breaks the build. I don't really have the time to
look after that; I don't
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 21:46 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Ron Johnson wrote:
Curiosity: why won't 1.1.5 build with sid? Is sid that out of
date (tools held back by some other dependency?), or did Sun/OOo
No. Ironically, it's apparently too up to date.
Newer gcc/binutils breaks the
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 18:06 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
Drew Parsons wrote:
1) openoffice.org2-common Depends: openoffice.org2-l10n-en-us
Is en-us *truly* necessary for OOo2 to work?
Yes. In some circumstances it just crashes without it.
Maybe it would even make more sense
13 matches
Mail list logo
