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. >