Re: [gentoo-user] parrot openoffice failures

2006-11-09 Thread Graham Murray
Richard Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now if openoffice fails to build against the new icu, then _that_ is a bug. :-) The rebuild of openoffice-2.04 to build against the new icu failed for me, but the emerge also download something. But I have not yet had time to look and see why the build

Re: [gentoo-user] parrot openoffice failures

2006-11-09 Thread Novensiles divi Flamen
On Thursday 09 November 2006 18:24, Graham Murray wrote: Richard Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now if openoffice fails to build against the new icu, then _that_ is a bug. :-) The rebuild of openoffice-2.04 to build against the new icu failed for me, but the emerge also download something.

[gentoo-user] parrot openoffice failures

2006-11-08 Thread Vladimir G. Ivanovic
Both parrot-0.4.6 openoffice-2.0.4 (on AMD64) fail to run because they are linked to *.so.34 versions of libraries in dev-libs/icu-3.4.1. The current version is 3.6 with *.so.36 libraries. Is this a bug? If it is a bug, is it a bug against parrot openoffice, icu or portage? BTW, re-emerging

Re: [gentoo-user] parrot openoffice failures

2006-11-08 Thread Vladimir G. Ivanovic
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:04 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: On 11/8/06, Vladimir G. Ivanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both parrot-0.4.6 openoffice-2.0.4 (on AMD64) fail to run because they are linked to *.so.34 versions of libraries in dev-libs/icu-3.4.1. The current version is 3.6 with

Re: [gentoo-user] parrot openoffice failures

2006-11-08 Thread Richard Fish
On 11/8/06, Vladimir G. Ivanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:04 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: On 11/8/06, Vladimir G. Ivanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both parrot-0.4.6 openoffice-2.0.4 (on AMD64) fail to run because they are linked to *.so.34 versions of libraries in

Re: [gentoo-user] parrot openoffice failures

2006-11-08 Thread Vladimir G. Ivanovic
Thanks for taking the time to explain. --- Vladimir On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 18:47 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: On 11/8/06, Vladimir G. Ivanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:04 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: On 11/8/06, Vladimir G. Ivanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both