[CentOS] Open Office 1.9.x
Mark Jarvis
mark.jarvis at pvmail.maricopa.edu
Wed Jul 13 07:05:56 UTC 2005
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.
>
More information about the CentOS
mailing list