I wrote:
> Any ideas on how to eliminate the
> wait time that OOo takes looking for the non-existing JRE?
Tools -> options -> java unchecking "Use a java runtime environment"
speeds OOo load time from 6 minutes to 30 seconds on this old Pentium
III without the JRE installed. 2.0 loads much faste
Ralph Katz wrote:
> Wait! After about 6 minutes... watching top, seeing kaffe-bin take 76%
> cpu, I see an OOo logo... and this:
>
> ~$ javaldx: Could not find a Java Runtime Environment!
>
> Now I have a working OOo, of course using 30.0% memory per top (of 256mb
> total).
>
> Thanks. I can w
Rene wrote:
> gij-4.0 doesn't exist on sarge and so its dependencies cannot make
> problems. If you have it available you have a mix... Not to mention OOo
> doesn't directly depend on gij-4.0 but does so on java-gcj-compat, which
> neither is in sarge.
Yes, I have a few unstable packages.
> Yes.
Hi,
Ralph Katz wrote:
> Using aptitude, selecting openoffice.org for installation and verifying
> that the bpo files were selected, these packages appeared broken and
> prevented OOo installation:
>
> Some dependencies of gij-4.0 are not satisfied:
> * gij-4.0 depends on libc6 (>= 2.3.5-1)
> Som
Accepted:
libmythes-dev_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/libmythes-dev_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
mozilla-openoffice.org_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/mozilla-openoffice.org_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
openoffice.org-base_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.or
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:48 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#339321: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:48 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#341056: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:48 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338523: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338288: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338288: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337970: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337309: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#336655: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#335313: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#335313: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#335313: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#316030: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:50:47 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#315428: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.0-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 338288 341281
Bug#338288: openoffice.org-common: Some wrong manpage links
Bug#341281: openoffice.org-common: bogus filename for oofromtemplate manual
page symlink (too many .gz-s)
Merged 338288 341281.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Jos? Rodrigo Sanjurjo Amado wrote:
> Hi,
> I have problems to install openoffice.org-writer 2.0.0-2 as it has
> said in bug#341056. How I can resolve it?
Either install libwpd8c2 from snapshot.debian.net, or simply wait for
2.0.0-3. Which already was uploaded but needs manual approval...
Hi,
I have problems to install openoffice.org-writer 2.0.0-2 as it has
said in bug#341056. How I can resolve it?
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
José Sanjurjo.
Package: openoffice.org-common
Version: 2.0.0-2
Severity: minor
The symlink oofromtemplate.1.gz.gz to openoffice.1.gz is badly named and
ignored by man-db. The
final '.gz' should be removed.
$ man oofromtemplate
man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/oofromtemplate.1.gz.gz: ignoring bogus
filename
Installing OOo2 sarge backport fails with aptitude and fails with dpkg
-i *.deb.
Using aptitude, selecting openoffice.org for installation and verifying
that the bpo files were selected, these packages appeared broken and
prevented OOo installation:
Some dependencies of gij-4.0 are not satisfied:
Package: openoffice.org-dev
Version: Version: 2.0.0-2
It looks like there may be unexpanded @FOO@ style substitutions in at
least /usr/lib/openoffice/sdk/setsdkenv_unix.sh:
$ fgrep '@' /usr/lib/openoffice/sdk/setsdkenv_unix.sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
Th
libmythes-dev_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/libmythes-dev_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
mozilla-openoffice.org_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/mozilla-openoffice.org_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
openoffice.org-base_2.0.0-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/o/openoffice.org/openoffice.org-base_2.0.
openoffice.org_2.0.0-3_source+i386+all.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
openoffice.org-l10n-it_2.0.0-3_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-de_2.0.0-3_all.deb
openoffice.org-dev-doc_2.0.0-3_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-et_2.0.0-3_all.deb
openoffice.org-l10n-ga_2.0.0
26 matches
Mail list logo
