[CentOS] Open Office 1.9.x

[Ajay]

Faced the cross-dependency problem when trying to install 1.9.113 on
CentOS4-i386.

After fooling around for sometime I downloaded and installed "smart"  
tool from
http://smartpm.org. Then dumped freedesktop and redhat menu RPMS from "desktop
integration" folder to "RPMS" folder and ran "smart install *". That did the
job nicely

Rgds

Ajay





Quoting Mark Jarvis <mark.jarvis at pvmail.maricopa.edu>:


>
> I have the -104 download tucked away in my download directory--I'll take
> a look at it.
>
> Thanks for the tip!
>
> -mj-
>
> Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:36 -0700, Mark Jarvis wrote:
>>
>>> I immediately ran into problems--
>>> 	1) The installation instructions were for OO 1.x.
>>> 	2) The download appears to be source RPMs.
>>
>>
>> I downloaded the version 1.9.104 (May 20th) binary RPMs for i386.
>> Build system on the RPMs is reported as up-smb2.germany.sun.com.
>>
>> Now I'm runing these binaries on Fedora Core 3 x86-64 no less.
>> It's a stock x86-64 install, except I do manually swap out Firefox
>> x86-64 for Firefox i386 (so all my i386 plug-ins work).
>>
>> So I'd say if a "plain Jane" Fedora Core 3 install (with limited Fedora
>> Extras / RPM.Livna.ORG packages) work, I don't see why it won't on
>> CentOS 4.
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone added OO1.9.113 to CentOS?
>>
>>
>> I would assume anything that runs on Fedora Core 3 would run on CentOS 4
>> without issue.  CentOS 3 might be an issue though.
>>
>> As far as the source RPMs, maybe those are included because you need to
>> build it from source.  It could be a Java Runtime Engine (JRE)
>> requirement that might be taken out of newer builds in favor of a GPL
>> Java stack like GCJ.  I'm running Sun JRE 1.5.0_02 (i586 I believe) on
>> my x86-64 system.
>>
>> But the RPMs didn't list them as a dependency.  In fact, I want to say
>> it was actually installed with the RPMs.  Now thinking back, it might
>> have installed Java with the RPMs in a single ".sh" file download and
>> subsequent run.
>>
>> That might explain it the best, why I had no problems.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>