Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Coleman Kane
Yeah, change the /usr/bin/test in soffice to /bin/test. BSD has test in /bin. Wes Peters had the audacity to say: > Coleman Kane wrote: > > > > Naw, man. Ports are necessary. > > > > They sure are: > > wes@homer$ /usr/local/office52/program > bash: /usr/local/office52/program: is a directory

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Wes Peters
Coleman Kane wrote: > > Naw, man. Ports are necessary. > > Michael Lucas had the audacity to say: > > > I did not have time to work out what's failing, but it should be easy > > > to reproduce (start the installer with an option, hmmm, think it was > > > /net, can't check, since I'm away from th

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Coleman Kane
You should be using the linux_base package. The linux_lib were removed after rh 5.2. I did this on 5.0-C. Ollivier Robert had the audacity to say: > According to Coleman Kane: > > I d/l'd from Sun and it installed without a hitch. It is a hell of a lot > > faster than 5.1 and they've gotten rid

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Ollivier Robert
According to Coleman Kane: > I d/l'd from Sun and it installed without a hitch. It is a hell of a lot > faster than 5.1 and they've gotten rid of some of the crapisms. On 5.0-CURRENT or 4-STABLE ? With which linux_lib port ? I tried on my 5.0-CURRENT with the latest linux_lib (from RedHate 6.1) a

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Christoph Sold
Michael Lucas wrote: > > > I did not have time to work out what's failing, but it should be easy > > to reproduce (start the installer with an option, hmmm, think it was > > /net, can't check, since I'm away from that system ...) > > Yep. Run the installer as root with the /net option, and pu

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Stephen Hocking
Just tried it - seems to work fine, although the soffice script needs one small mod to take account of the fact that test is /bin/test. Stephen -- The views expressed above are not those of PGS Tensor. "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Coleman Kane
Naw, man. Ports are necessary. Michael Lucas had the audacity to say: > > I did not have time to work out what's failing, but it should be easy > > to reproduce (start the installer with an option, hmmm, think it was > > /net, can't check, since I'm away from that system ...) > > Yep. Run the i

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Michael Lucas
> I did not have time to work out what's failing, but it should be easy > to reproduce (start the installer with an option, hmmm, think it was > /net, can't check, since I'm away from that system ...) Yep. Run the installer as root with the /net option, and put it under, say, /usr/local/office52

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-03 Thread Stefan Esser
On 2000-07-03 00:26 -0400, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I d/l'd from Sun and it installed without a hitch. It is a hell of a lot > faster than 5.1 and they've gotten rid of some of the crapisms. I didn't try to do any actual work with it, but I noticed that while the direct installat

Re: Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-02 Thread Coleman Kane
I d/l'd from Sun and it installed without a hitch. It is a hell of a lot faster than 5.1 and they've gotten rid of some of the crapisms. Stephen Hocking had the audacity to say: > > Hopefully some industrious soul will update the port... > > > Stephen > -- > The views expressed above

Anyone tried StarOffice 5.2 yet?

2000-07-02 Thread Stephen Hocking
Hopefully some industrious soul will update the port... Stephen -- The views expressed above are not those of PGS Tensor. "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know thi