[blfs-dev] libreoffice-4.1.1

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Fri Aug 30 18:07:07 PDT 2013


Em 30-08-2013 19:15, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> 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?

Also, the cp commands for dictionaries are modified, but this is
obvious, of course.


>>
>> 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.

I do not tell. :-) Only today, before or after we exchanged posts, I
noticed that only Python 3 was there as Recommended. Could not find the
reason nor when P2 was removed. But have only 2.7.x installed in my
systems, so, was surprised.

> 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.

Thanks for that.

>  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.

First, to be clear, when I was telling that it is just a change of
prefix, I was referring to all previous, including the one on the book.

Perhaps and perhaps. Have not yet built it. Was waiting, first to ask
the questions, and later, to see if we would have more replies.

For the version in the book, IIRC, investigated Fedora and Arch (perhaps
only Fedora, Arch had not released it yet, I think, so only in Fedora I
could see no "beta" in splash) to see where they had removed the "beta"
from the screen, tried to understand where it is in the source code,
just to remove it, without success. But you must be right, maybe it was
not to be released, I did not consider this possibility, it was already
in the book. Hopefully, as you say, the new one will have everything
fixed. I will try do do it tomorrow, first for the book.

>>
>> 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 !

No, I did the tags today, because was trying exactly those, when the
glibc problem appeared. So it was a way of saying to myself that we had
really overcome another problem. And if it was supposed to be
7.4-rc-some, Bruce would promptly say, I thought.

> 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
> 

OK. Thanks for everything, ĸen.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list