[blfs-dev] libreoffice-4.1.1

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Fri Aug 30 15:15:33 PDT 2013


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 06:47:55PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Installing in /opt/libreoffice-4.1.1.2 is as easy as changing replacing
> the prefix. I have always used in /opt/.., not in /usr. Is it OK to
> change the page so that the user is left with the choice between the two?
> 
> I never use the dependencies: Redland-1.0.16 (which requires
> Rasqal-0.9.30 > Raptor-2.0.10, all started by R's), OpenLDAP-2.4.36,
> Berkeley DB-6.0.20 and unixODBC-2.3.1. Is it OK to move them to Optional?
> 
> Python 2 can be used, instead of Python 3 (this is how I use). Is it OK
> to add in Recommended 2 as alternative to 3?

 How do you tell it to use Python 2 ?  I've been installing 3 solely
for LO-4.  As I said privately, I install all of the above *except*
OpenLDAP and unixODBC and I seen no reason to use them on a regular
desktop.  For a company-wide installation, maybe.

 One other question - is this version a release, or is it labelled
as alpha or beta on the splash screen ?  I noted the label on the
current version, perhaps that is why there are so many xml errors in
the languages - but it does seem to work ok.
> 
> Thanks, Ken, for discussing these matters with me.
> 
> BTW:
> 
> Bruce, is ok to use my system with corrected glibc for development and
> tag 7.4? I did tag the java and icedtea-web using it.
> 
> Can we go on tagging packages, or need to reinstall everything from
> scratch? I think I am not the only one in doubt about this.
> 
 I think I sowed some of those doubts !  At that time, Bruce hadn't
confirmed what he was going to include in -rc2.  With *only* glibc
changed, and that by reverting one thing to how it used to be in
2.17, I don't think there is any likelihood of problems.  Still got
to test (I'm building LFS at the moment), but my guess is we should
just keep on tagging.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list