Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:58:02AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> >Stupid question, but I just got 1.0.1-5 from the testing mirror and am
> >curious as to why openoffice.org-bin still depends on libstdc++3 since
> >it is now built with gcc-3.2? It doesn't really even see
Hi Jan,
Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> Does it make sence to build OOo with newer gcc/glibc/binutils etc etc on
> woody or should I only use the woody packages and the newer needed
> debhelper?
I would try to do the second, if that does not work we can try to the
other possibility. But our goal is to
Hi .. :)
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 06:53:30PM +0200, Chris Halls wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:28:45AM +0200, Daniel Mueller wrote:
>> I wanted to know if it is a big problem to release an openoffice version
>> for the woody/stable distribution. That would be very fine and other
>> users woul
Hi ..
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:58:02AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
>Stupid question, but I just got 1.0.1-5 from the testing mirror and am
>curious as to why openoffice.org-bin still depends on libstdc++3 since
>it is now built with gcc-3.2? It doesn't really even seem possible to
>me for so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings:
I found this on the net:
* Problems with S3 Savage chip
If you are running XFree86 4.x and have an S3 Savage chip, you must use
this workaround. Export this variable before starting openoffice:
SAL_DO_NOT_USE_INVERT50=true
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:28:45AM +0200, Daniel Mueller wrote:
> I wanted to know if it is a big problem to release an openoffice version
> for the woody/stable distribution. That would be very fine and other
> users would be happy also.
I actually got as far as building -4 with Woody, but that
6 matches
Mail list logo
