I got an error launching it:
% openoffice
running openoffice.org setup...
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/setup.bin: error while loading shared
libraries: libstlport_gcc3.0.so.4.5: cannot open shared object file: No
such file or directory
setup failed.. abort
It is looking for libstlport_gcc3.0.s
Hej,
now they work! Thank you.
Greetings,
Jan
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 08:06:50PM +0200, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> But Chris finished building OpenOffice.org for Woody and I think, he
> will announce them in the next time after testing (for i 386).
Yup, they are there now.
I pointed 'testing' to them too, because everyone seems to want to be
Hi ..
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:56:43PM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>I got the hands on a P4 1.8GHz running Woody.
>I would like to help.
>How can I compile it as best as possible?
>Any instructions to get it to work asap?
>
>Should not take long to compile it on this machine.
All you need is
Hi ..
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:51:48PM +0200, Jan Camenisch wrote:
>it seems that openoffice.org-bin_1.0.0-5_i386.deb
>is not installable on woody anymore (see below).
>The reason seems to be that it is build for testing
>and not for woody...
>Are there any plans to provide packages for
>woo
Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
Hi ..
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:42:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard 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 tha
Hej,
it seems that openoffice.org-bin_1.0.0-5_i386.deb
is not installable on woody anymore (see below).
The reason seems to be that it is build for testing
and not for woody...
Are there any plans to provide packages for
woody again?
Thanks,
Jan
% apt-get install openoffice.org-bin
Read
Hi ..
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:42:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard 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
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
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
Hi ..
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:39:27AM +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
>>i was very happy with your openoffice packages for debian, till i
>>updated my apt-sources today and ran into trouble with the installed
>>OpenOffice on my Woody-Box. There are now unsatisfied dependencies
>>(libc6, libgcc
Daniel Mueller wrote:
Hi there,
i was very happy with your openoffice packages for debian, till i
updated my apt-sources today and ran into trouble with the installed
OpenOffice on my Woody-Box. There are now unsatisfied dependencies
(libc6, libgcc1, libstdc++5) that needs some packages from
Hi there,
i was very happy with your openoffice packages for debian, till i
updated my apt-sources today and ran into trouble with the installed
OpenOffice on my Woody-Box. There are now unsatisfied dependencies
(libc6, libgcc1, libstdc++5) that needs some packages from
sarge/testing. But i w
14 matches
Mail list logo
