Hi Rene, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > rhino isn't in the .orig.tar.gz
That might explain. > Anyway, I know how to fix this bug (have a patch for it) but fixing this > bug for 2.0.0 is completely useless since it may build but not really work. > > That's why I don't put efforts into it. ok. > If you want a usable OOo on amd64 use the 32-bit one. No, I want a true 64-bit version of OOo and I'm here to help. > The ooo-build for 2.0.1 (and therefore the 2.0.1 packages) may build out of > the box, though, but still not work. Where can I find it ? Each time I do an "apt-get source openoffice.org", I get the 2.0.0. I found this page: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/editors/openoffice.org But how to specify in the "apt-get source" to grab this one ? Is there plan, for Debian, to move quickly to the 2.0.1 ? A lot of people are waiting for the AMD64 to be "official" and OOo is one major software. >>diff -ruN >>openoffice.org-2.0.0/ooo-build/patches/64bit/buildfix-64bit-config_office.diff >> >>openoffice.org-2.0.0-2/ooo-build/patches/64bit/buildfix-64bit-config_office.diff >>--- >>openoffice.org-2.0.0/ooo-build/patches/64bit/buildfix-64bit-config_office.diff >> 2005-12-17 16:53:03.000000000 +0100 >>+++ >>openoffice.org-2.0.0-2/ooo-build/patches/64bit/buildfix-64bit-config_office.diff >> 2005-12-17 18:41:27.000000000 +0100 >>@@ -1,5 +1,14 @@ >> --- config_office/configure.in 2005-01-28 05:34:39.000000000 +0100 >> +++ config_office/configure.in 2005-01-28 05:36:21.000000000 +0100 >>+@@ -3357,7 +3385,7 @@ >>+ AC_MSG_RESULT([external]) >>+ SYSTEM_HUNSPELL=YES >>+ AC_LANG(C++) >>+- AC_CHECK_HEADER(hunspell.hxx, [], >>++ AC_CHECK_HEADER(hunspell/hunspell.hxx, [], >>+ [AC_MSG_ERROR(hunspell headers not found.)], []) >>+ AC_CHECK_LIB(hunspell, main, [], >>+ [ AC_MSG_ERROR(hunspell library not found.) ], []) >> @@ -3481,17 +3481,17 @@ >> MOC="moc" >> if test "$test_kde" = "yes" -a "$ENABLE_KDE" = "TRUE" ; then >>diff -ruN openoffice.org-2.0.0/ooo-build/patches/64bit/intptr-basegfx.diff >>openoffice.org-2.0.0-2/ooo-build/patches/64bit/intptr-basegfx.diff > > > Broken. Completely. Don't change a püatch shared by every distro with a > debian-specific one. And anyway: debian-hunspell-build.diff already does > the stuff necessary. When I started to make the patches, this was'nt fixed and it was aborting the compilation. I didn't know about the debian-hunspell-build.diff patch, so this part of my patch is useless. >>+++ openoffice.org-2.0.0-2/ooo-build/patches/OOO_2_0/apply 2005-12-17 >>18:44:04.000000000 +0100 >>@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ >> DebianBase : LinuxCommon, SystemDB, DebianBaseOnly >> Debian : DebianBase, DebianOnly, DebianSidOnly >> DebianSarge : DebianBase, DebianOnly, DebianSargeOnly >>-Debian64 : DebianBase, 64bit, DebianOnly >>+Debian64 : DebianBase, 64bit, DebianOnly, IntPtr > > > Which bars the question why IntPtr is not in the 64bit alias, but as > that doesn't matter for 2.0.0 anyway... The IntPtr patches should be applied on any architectures. It is about removing errors of the type: I get a pointer out of an "malloc" and I cast it to an sal_uInt32. Which is ok under 32-bits architecture but not in 64-bits. Theses patches are safe. > And you didn't explain why you disabled some patches... Because they are not present in the archive and make the building process fail. Regards -- Emmanuel Fleury I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept. -- Calvin & Hobbes (Bill Waterson)
