2008/10/21 Michael George [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yesterday I saw that openoffice 3.0 was unmasked for amd64 so I built
and installed it. It seemed to work fine on a couple test documents
that I opened, but then I ran into a problem with the one which has my
household expense spreadsheets.
I
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:13:52PM +0200, Beso wrote:
2008/10/21 Michael George [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yesterday I saw that openoffice 3.0 was unmasked for amd64 so I built
and installed it. It seemed to work fine on a couple test documents
that I opened, but then I ran into a problem with the
Emerged the new openoffice2.3 release candidate 2 on my amd64 Gentoo box.
It seems there is a crash issue on x86_64 architectures, if anybody can
comment (verify or disprove) please do so.
To see a detailed description please check openoffice bug :
Madame Genton a quitté l'UFA afin de se consacrer à d'autres tâches. Ce
courriel n'est pas transféré, veuillez vous adresser directement à Madame
Bruckner :
Patricia Bruckner
Tel.: +49 (0) 681 9 38 12 - 116
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frau Genton hat die DFH verlassen, um sich anderen Aufgaben
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 22:19 -0400, sean wrote:
I was running 3.4.6 because I did not know any better.
I have only been running Gentoo (amd64 or any other version) for a short
time now on a regular basis and did not know any better.
Still learning (slowly as time and problems arise) what I
Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 15:58 -0400, sean wrote:
Any ideas on this latest build problem below?
Not sure where to start on troubleshooting this one yet.
gcc-config -l
[1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6 *
[2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardened
[3]
Simon Stelling wrote:
sean wrote:
Does this seem correct?
No. That check takes a few microseconds, at least when it works.
Thanks.
Can anyone shed some light on this build error for me?
Thanks again
Sean
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 08:15 -0400, sean wrote:
Can anyone shed some light on this build error for me?
You need to use the Blackdown JVM because the Sun JVM apparently has a
naming conflict.
JAVA_PKG_FORCE_VM=blackdown-jdk-1.4.2 emerge -av openoffice
--- Vladimir
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 05:41 -0700, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 08:15 -0400, sean wrote:
Can anyone shed some light on this build error for me?
You need to use the Blackdown JVM because the Sun JVM apparently has a
naming conflict.
Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote:
I forgot to mention that it _might_ be possible to restart the
OpenOffice build from whence it stopped with
Very unlikely. At the point the build fails, many Java files have
already been compiled to .class files by the 1.5 VM. They are
incompatible with the 1.4 VM
sean wrote:
Thanks, I will install blackdown and restart the build, not really
worried about having to start completely over.
Is there any reason to keep the sun java package installed?
If you don't need Java 5, you can uninstall it. But I think there are
one or two packages actually requiring
Sebastian Redl wrote:
sean wrote:
Thanks, I will install blackdown and restart the build, not really
worried about having to start completely over.
Is there any reason to keep the sun java package installed?
If you don't need Java 5, you can uninstall it. But I think there are
one or two
sean wrote:
I do not see one so I guess there is no 64bit version?
It's called blackdown-jdk.
Sebastian Redl
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
sean wrote:
Well, my next build error.
All, just wanted to say in advance, thanks for all the help.
I am guessing that this javac error is some setting I need to correct?
Sean
From a bit of reading this appears to be tied to something with a java
compiler.
Does that sound
sean wrote:
Well, my next build error.
All, just wanted to say in advance, thanks for all the help.
I am guessing that this javac error is some setting I need to correct?
Sean
checking whether to add custom build version... yes, Build 2.0.4.1
checking whether to build with
Sebastian Redl wrote:
sean wrote:
Well, my next build error.
All, just wanted to say in advance, thanks for all the help.
I am guessing that this javac error is some setting I need to correct?
Sean
checking whether to add custom build version... yes, Build 2.0.4.1
checking
sean wrote:
It is very long, do you want the whole thing, or a certain part?
tail -n 20
Sebastian Redl
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Sebastian Redl wrote:
sean wrote:
Well, my next build error.
All, just wanted to say in advance, thanks for all the help.
I am guessing that this javac error is some setting I need to correct?
Sean
checking whether to add custom build version... yes, Build 2.0.4.1
checking
sean wrote:
Thanks
This particular configure run does not check for anything Java. There
might be a different configure script that does and fails.
But I don't know where, or where its log would be.
Sebastian Redl
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Sebastian Redl wrote:
sean wrote:
Thanks
This particular configure run does not check for anything Java. There
might be a different configure script that does and fails.
But I don't know where, or where its log would be.
Sebastian Redl
Well I managed to get passed the javac error problem.
Sebastian Redl wrote:
sean wrote:
Thanks
This particular configure run does not check for anything Java. There
might be a different configure script that does and fails.
But I don't know where, or where its log would be.
Sebastian Redl
I am looking around, but so far no luck.
--
Any ideas on this latest build problem below?
Not sure where to start on troubleshooting this one yet.
gcc-config -l
[1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6 *
[2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardened
[3] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardenednopie
[4] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardenednopiessp
[5]
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 15:58 -0400, sean wrote:
Any ideas on this latest build problem below?
Not sure where to start on troubleshooting this one yet.
gcc-config -l
[1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6 *
[2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardened
[3] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6-hardenednopie
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 15:58 -0400, sean wrote:
ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while making
/var/tmp/portage/openoffice-2.0.4/work/
Interesting. I don't know if it makes a difference, but for me, emerge
uses
/var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-2.0.4/work/
Currently building Openoffice and so far the build has been staying at
the line
checking whether g++ accepts -g... yes
for what seems like several hours.
Does this seem correct?
Thanks
Sean
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing
sean wrote:
Does this seem correct?
No. That check takes a few microseconds, at least when it works.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Hi list!!
emerge --search openoffice show that openoffice is masked. Instead,
there is an unmasked package called openoffice-bin. Does it mean that
OOo doesn't compile on amd64?
TIA, Daniele
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Daniele Salatti wrote:
Hi list!!
emerge --search openoffice show that openoffice is masked. Instead,
there is an unmasked package called openoffice-bin. Does it mean that
OOo doesn't compile on amd64?
TIA, Daniele
Yes, in fact, if you do an emerge -p openoffice it will tell you it's
masked
PaulNM wrote:
Daniele Salatti wrote:
Hi list!!
emerge --search openoffice show that openoffice is masked. Instead,
there is an unmasked package called openoffice-bin. Does it mean that
OOo doesn't compile on amd64?
TIA, Daniele
Yes, in fact, if you do an emerge -p openoffice it
Daniele Salatti wrote:
PaulNM wrote:
Daniele Salatti wrote:
Hi list!!
emerge --search openoffice show that openoffice is masked. Instead,
there is an unmasked package called openoffice-bin. Does it mean that
OOo doesn't compile on amd64?
TIA, Daniele
Yes, in fact, if you do an
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 09:19, PaulNM wrote:
For posterity, since my AMD64X2 was not on earlier:
Optimus ~ # emerge -p openoffice
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy openoffice have been masked.
!!! One of
In general, when you see masked package in 'emerge --search',
whether you can use it or not depends on how it is masked.
If it was ~amd64, meaning it is in testing stage, you could compile it and
probably be happy, but openoffice is -amd64, which means it does not work.
Unfortunately 'emerge
Brett Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:07:06AM -0500, Scott Stoddard wrote:
In my case we're using a diskless gentoo system where the home
directories are all nfs mounts to the server. The problem had to do
with nfs file locking. It can be solved by editing
Andreas Vinsander wrote:
Hi!
After upgrading openoffice-bin from 1.1.5 to 2.0.2 my ordinary users
can't save documents or exit out of openoffice applications.
An strace on the pid of a hanging process (tried to exit OOo) shows this:
[ Process PID=11248 runs in 32 bit mode. ]
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:07:06AM -0500, Scott Stoddard wrote:
In my case we're using a diskless gentoo system where the home
directories are all nfs mounts to the server. The problem had to do
with nfs file locking. It can be solved by editing
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice and
Jonathan Schaeffer wrote:
Exactly how did you do that?
Using the OOo gui, I can't disable java. It hangs indefinitely when
trying to manipulate the java settings in the OOo options.
How long did you wait ? It's taking a good big minute by me.
Erm, I got to be more patient.
I managed to
2006/3/21, Andreas Vinsander [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martins Steinbergs wrote:
not sure is it exactly the same issue, but you might try disable java in oo
for users. at least i got long stalls away this way.
Exactly how did you do that?
Using the OOo gui, I can't disable java. It hangs
Martins Steinbergs wrote:
not sure is it exactly the same issue, but you might try disable java in oo
for users. at least i got long stalls away this way.
Exactly how did you do that?
Using the OOo gui, I can't disable java. It hangs indefinitely when
trying to manipulate the java settings in
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 17:26, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
Jonathan Schaeffer wrote:
Exactly how did you do that?
Using the OOo gui, I can't disable java. It hangs indefinitely when
trying to manipulate the java settings in the OOo options.
How long did you wait ? It's taking a good big
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 18.59, David Fellows wrote:
The amd64 openoffice-bin requires a *32 bit* java to be installed. It does
take forever for ooo to decide that it can't find one.
The 2.0.2 ebuild should install one (app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-java).
Perhaps the location entries in the
Thierry de Coulon wrote:
What does OOo use Java for anyway? I've made installations on machines that
did not have java with no problem. And I've turned it off on my machine
without noticing anything but a faster start...
OO.org Base is based on HBSQL (or something like that), which is
Hi!
After upgrading openoffice-bin from 1.1.5 to 2.0.2 my ordinary users
can't save documents or exit out of openoffice applications.
An strace on the pid of a hanging process (tried to exit OOo) shows this:
[ Process PID=11248 runs in 32 bit mode. ]
futex(0x80bab50, FUTEX_WAIT, 2, NULL
On Monday 20 March 2006 17:02, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
Hi!
After upgrading openoffice-bin from 1.1.5 to 2.0.2 my ordinary users
can't save documents or exit out of openoffice applications.
An strace on the pid of a hanging process (tried to exit OOo) shows this:
[ Process PID=11248 runs
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 12:04 +0200, Γιώργος Αβραμίδης wrote:
I did USE=-java emerge openoffice-bin because i had some problems with
java,
emerged just fine.
But when I try to run ooffice it says
/usr/lib32/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: symbol lookup
error:
Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
Why I call it 64bit hacks?
That patchset for 64bit support lets OpenOffice.org compile on amd64
but then runtime is still unstable. One thing is to make OpenOffice.org
compile on amd64. The other thing is to make OpenOffice.org runtime
stable. That means some code just
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:31:14 +0100
Sebastian Redl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I say something wrong anyone please correct me! Thanks.
Well, I disagree that the code needs a full rewrite. Why? All it needs
is correcting all places where it attempts to store pointers in 32-bit
variables.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I speak programmer. This is jargon meaning the code is so complicated
and/or so poorly understood that it might be easier, faster, more
reliable, better in the long run, and more personally rewarding to
rewrite. :)
I looked at this presentation. It makes me
Thanks everyone,
I did build OOo on a p3 system, then package the binary and install it
on the amd64 system, but no go. I might experiment a bit more, but for
now I agree the easiest thing to do it use openoffice-bin.
Cheers,
Chris
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Greetings,
Just curious if anyone has had any success actually /compiling/
openoffice 2.0 (from the portage ebuild) on an amd64 platform?
or are people using openoffice-bin or a chroot environment?
Cheers,
Chris
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
The claim is amd64 compilation is planned for 2.0.2
Greetings,
Just curious if anyone has had any success actually /compiling/
openoffice 2.0 (from the portage ebuild) on an amd64 platform?
or are people using openoffice-bin or a chroot environment?
Cheers,
Chris
--
Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
The claim is amd64 compilation is planned for 2.0.2
cheers, for some reason I thought you could compile it on an amd64 arch
but not as an actual 64bit app (ie in 32bit mode using emul).
-c
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
Qian Qiao wrote:
On 11/5/05, sean wrote:
Looking in the openoffice-bin directory I see a listing for
openoffice-bin-2.0.0.ebuild and it does have the amd64 listed as a keyword.
However, whenever I do an emerge openoffice-bin the build process
installs version 1.1.5.
I did notice that the
On 11/5/05, sean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking in the openoffice-bin directory I see a listing for
openoffice-bin-2.0.0.ebuild and it does have the amd64 listed as a keyword.
However, whenever I do an emerge openoffice-bin the build process
installs version 1.1.5.
I did notice that the
Yes, people claim it is due to Java.
You need to have 32-bit Java installed, otherwise OO can't use java
and spends lots of time searching for it
Hi *,
I emerged openoffice-bin v2.
When I start ooo2-writer, it's taking an eternity : about 75 seconds
(ok, it'a pretty short
Jonathan Schaeffer wrote:
Hi *,
I emerged openoffice-bin v2.
When I start ooo2-writer, it's taking an eternity : about 75 seconds
(ok, it'a pretty short eternity)
Has anybody seen this issue ? May it be due to blackdown java ?
It's a well known issue by now. Most people (including me)
On Thursday 27 October 2005 17:19, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
Yes, people claim it is due to Java.
You need to have 32-bit Java installed, otherwise OO can't use java
and spends lots of time searching for it
Hi *,
I emerged openoffice-bin v2.
When I start ooo2-writer, it's taking an
On Friday 21 October 2005 09:22, Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
I had the same problem with openoffice 1.1.4 some months ago, I solved
it as stated here:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-365639-highlight-openoffice+icons.
html
Yesterday I upgraded the system (incl. openoffice and xorg), icons
Yann Ramin wrote:
I've noticed this too, haven't figured out a proper solution to this.
I've been using OO.o v2 on my Ubuntu laptop because of it. Version 2
is a far cry better than 1. Does v2 build on AMD64 reliably now?
Anyone tried their luck?
The icon thing is a known bug in later
I had the same problem with openoffice 1.1.4 some months ago, I solved
it as stated here:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-365639-highlight-openoffice+icons.html
Yesterday I upgraded the system (incl. openoffice and xorg), icons are
ok even though the patch mentioned in the forum was not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
I have been rebuilding my system. The toolbar icons for OpenOffice are
not readable. Some are OK but other are mostly black. Has anyone seen this?
Thanks,
Scott
PS Let me know if the fields in the email have any problems.
You can fix it by upgrading to the latest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been rebuilding my system. The toolbar icons for OpenOffice are
not readable. Some are OK but other are mostly black. Has anyone seen this?
I had the same problem. I fixed it indirectly by installing the toolbar
icon themes:
On Thu, 2005-20-10 at 21:35 -0700, Yann Ramin wrote:
I've noticed this too, haven't figured out a proper solution to this.
I've been using OO.o v2 on my Ubuntu laptop because of it. Version 2 is
a far cry better than 1. Does v2 build on AMD64 reliably now? Anyone
tried their luck?
AMD64
I have been rebuilding my system. The toolbar icons for OpenOffice are
not readable. Some are OK but other are mostly black. Has anyone seen this?
Thanks,
Scott
PS Let me know if the fields in the email have any problems.
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
I've noticed this too, haven't figured out a proper solution to this.
I've been using OO.o v2 on my Ubuntu laptop because of it. Version 2 is
a far cry better than 1. Does v2 build on AMD64 reliably now? Anyone
tried their luck?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been rebuilding my system.
For the archives... this worked for me. As it happened I was
missing emul-linux-x86-gtklibs and the args on the CLI seemed
to solve the missing /usr/lib/libsandbox.so (even though I had
both in /etc/make.conf).
emerge app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-gtklibs
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64 FEATURES=-sandbox
65 matches
Mail list logo
