My plea: OpenOffice 1.1.3 packages for FC2

[Steve Snyder]

Is there any chance we could get OpenOffice 1.1.3 packages for FC2?

There have been a lot of fixes between the v1.1.1 that shipped with FC2 
and the current v1.1.3.  Furthermore, the v1.1.x packages in FC 
development can't be built on FC2 due to dependency requirements.

Can it really be so hard for the FC2 packages to be updated to v1.1.3 of 
the OpenOffice software?  Please, please, please FC2 developers, can we 
get updated OpenOffice RPMs?

Thanks.

[William Hooper]

Steve Snyder said:
> Is there any chance we could get OpenOffice 1.1.3 packages for FC2?

I doubt it since the newest in development is 1.1.2.
> There have been a lot of fixes between the v1.1.1 that shipped with FC2
> and the current v1.1.3.  Furthermore, the v1.1.x packages in FC development
> can't be built on FC2 due to dependency requirements.

Did you look at the spec file?

##################################
# OS Build Options
##################################
# Red Hat Linux 9
%define build_rhl9                      0
# Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
%define build_rhel3                     0
# Fedora Core 1
%define build_fc1                       0
# Fedora Core 2
%define build_fc2                       0
# Fedora Core 3
%define build_fc3                       1

[David Cary Hart]

On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 20:12, William Hooper wrote:
> Steve Snyder said:
> > Is there any chance we could get OpenOffice 1.1.3 packages for FC2?
>
> I doubt it since the newest in development is 1.1.2.
> > There have been a lot of fixes between the v1.1.1 that shipped with FC2
> > and the current v1.1.3.  Furthermore, the v1.1.x packages in FC development
> > can't be built on FC2 due to dependency requirements.

Requires Evolution-Data-Server for some strange reason.

Anyway, OO has a a very simple install wiz. Moreover, the stock RPMs
omit Java support.
> Did you look at the spec file?
> ##################################
> # OS Build Options
> ##################################
> # Red Hat Linux 9
> %define build_rhl9                      0
> # Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
> %define build_rhel3                     0
> # Fedora Core 1
> %define build_fc1                       0
> # Fedora Core 2
> %define build_fc2                       0
> # Fedora Core 3
> %define build_fc3                       1
>
> -- 
> William Hooper

[William Hooper]

David Cary Hart said:
> On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 20:12, William Hooper wrote:
> > Steve Snyder said:
> > > Is there any chance we could get OpenOffice 1.1.3 packages for FC2?
> >
> > I doubt it since the newest in development is 1.1.2.
> > > There have been a lot of fixes between the v1.1.1 that shipped with
> > > FC2
> > > and the current v1.1.3.  Furthermore, the v1.1.x packages in FC
> > > development can't be built on FC2 due to dependency requirements.
>
> Requires Evolution-Data-Server for some strange reason.

Not if you rebuild with the correct options.
# FC2
%if %{build_fc2}
%define DistroName RHFedora
%define release_extension .fc2
%define build_kde 1
%define build_gtk 1
%define build_evo2_connector 0
%endif
> Anyway, OO has a a very simple install wiz. Moreover, the stock RPMs
> omit Java support.

Again, use the SPEC Luke.

# Java stuff
%define enable_java 0

[Ben Smith]

William Hooper wrote:
> Did you look at the spec file?
>
> ##################################
> # OS Build Options
> ##################################
> # Red Hat Linux 9
> %define build_rhl9                      0
> # Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
> %define build_rhel3                     0
> # Fedora Core 1
> %define build_fc1                       0
> # Fedora Core 2
> %define build_fc2                       0
> # Fedora Core 3
> %define build_fc3                       1

Is that from 1.1.2-7 ??  If so, great, because 1.1.2-3 doesn't contain 
those options...

-Ben
www.deesconsulting.com

[William Hooper]

Ben Smith said:
> William Hooper wrote:
> > Did you look at the spec file?
> >
> > ##################################
> > # OS Build Options
> > ##################################

[snip]
> Is that from 1.1.2-7 ??

Yep.