Question about OpenOffice installation

DJ Lucas blfs-dev at lfs.lucasit.com
Thu Apr 27 15:46:11 PDT 2006


Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote these words on 04/27/06 11:20 CST:
> 
> 
>>Is this just showing different 
>>ways to use programs in /opt for educational value, or is there some 
>>technical reason for symlinking OOo progs in /usr/bin rather than adding 
>>/opt/openoffice-[version] to the path?
> 
> 
> I have no clue why it is set up that way. However, I'll hazard a
> guess. Perhaps there are program names in the OOo bin directory
> that conflict with some other system-installed programs. If that
> isn't the case, seems setting the PATH would be the much preferred
> way to go.
> 

The real reason is a matter of historical policy.  IOW...somebody 
(Tushar) did it that way before me, and I've always followed suit. But 
after reading the above message and considering it, 
/opt/openoffice-2.0.2/programs contains several libraries as well as 
support programs not intended to
be run directly.  Adding /opt/openoffice-2.0.2/programs to the path will 
result in 34 executable files added to your path (this number will be 
different depending on your installed deps).  You need, and want, only 6 
of those in the path.  The symlinks are the best solution.

-- DJ Lucas



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list