opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Tobias Ulmer
Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just
wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other
languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that nobody
needs.

Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the
/proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed...

Tobias

openoffice-linux-2.0.2.tar.gz (32K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Hannah Schroeter
Hello!

On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:06:33PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
>Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just
>wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other
>languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that nobody
>needs.

>Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the
>/proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed...

Haven't you just tried it out?

I'd think a port like yours *is* definitely useful. Of course, it'd be
the best thing to make a native port, but as far as I can understand,
that's quite difficult due to not quite portable upstream code. And so a
emulated Linux binary would be more than nothing.

I haven't tested your port yet, but perhaps I can do so soon.

>Tobias

Kind regards,

Hannah.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Tobias Ulmer
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:45:09PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

> Hello!
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:06:33PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> >Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just
> >wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other
> >languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that nobody
> >needs.
>
> >Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the
> >/proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed...
>
> Haven't you just tried it out?

I have and it works fine without procfs for me, but OpenOffice has lot's of
odd functions and I use maybe 5% of them.
>
> I'd think a port like yours *is* definitely useful. Of course, it'd be
> the best thing to make a native port, but as far as I can understand,
> that's quite difficult due to not quite portable upstream code. And so a
> emulated Linux binary would be more than nothing.

I think it was pvalchev@ who tried to build it from sources and
stoped after 200 (?) or more patches. I wasted a complete
weekend to get the build system going and started patching, it's
really no fun.

>
> I haven't tested your port yet, but perhaps I can do so soon.
>
> >Tobias
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hannah.
>
>

I got some postitive feedback privately.
A common question is stability. There is nothing I can do.. It works,
but I suggest to (auto)save often. Sometimes it freezes or burns
cpu-cycles in endless loops. It's the same quality you get if you follow
the "howto" that is on various blogs.

Btw: pkg/DESCR lacks a good description... I'm happy about any diffs ;)

Tobias

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Ian Darwin
In reply to this post by Tobias Ulmer
> Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just
> wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other
> languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that
 > nobody needs.

I find it handy. I previously had copied the files over from a Linux box
and got it working, but I had serious stability problems (program
locking up regularly). So far stability has been better (only two
lockups so far, with limited use of your binary port).

> Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the
> /proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed...

I had thought it was necessary, but have run without it.

The problem I have is that if you have a native Java on your path,
the startup script hangs at the "javaldr" command. Could you add a check
for whether jdk-linux or jdk-1.x is installed, or otherwise found out
which, so people don't have to dement their paths just to use soffice?
Or even just patch out javaldr altogether, if what it wants to do
can't be done in our environment?

Otherwise I think it's a good thing - thanks! Clearly a native port
would be better, but that's a longer term goal.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Hannah Schroeter
In reply to this post by Tobias Ulmer
Hi!

On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:06:33PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
>Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just
>wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other
>languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that nobody
>needs.

>Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the
>/proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed...

Did a very small test and it worked so far.

Kind regards,

Hannah.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Roy Morris-4
In reply to this post by Tobias Ulmer
just did it clean on 3.9-snapshot . No Java, no procfs  - Seems to work
fine.

You da man!

Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just
> wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other
> languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that nobody
> needs.
>
> Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the
> /proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed...
>
> Tobias

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Thorsten Glaser-3
In reply to this post by Ian Darwin
Ian Darwin dixit:

[ /proc ]
> I had thought it was necessary, but have run without it.

The docs say procfs -o linu and /emul/linux/etc/mtab (empty)
were needed, didn't try without...

> Or even just patch out javaldr altogether, if what it wants to do
> can't be done in our environment?

Just patching it out doesn't make any problems except that it
crashes when trying to access the java preferences.

That said, oo sucks ;)

//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Frank Garcia
In reply to this post by Ian Darwin
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 07:24, Ian Darwin wrote:
> > Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice.

> The problem I have is that if you have a native Java on your path,
> the startup script hangs at the "javaldr" command. Could you add a check
> for whether jdk-linux or jdk-1.x is installed, or otherwise found out
> which, so people don't have to dement their paths just to use soffice?
> Or even just patch out javaldr altogether, if what it wants to do
> can't be done in our environment?
>
> Otherwise I think it's a good thing - thanks! Clearly a native port
> would be better, but that's a longer term goal.

I tested on i386, 3/23 snapshot. Most packages on the system were installed
from the 2/26 packages. It's working for a simple test: open a simple Excel
file, output a pdf; Open a new Text document, paste in some text, change
fonts, save as Word doc.

I did have a startup issue with java, however. When I
leave /usr/local/jdk-1.5.0/jre/bin in the $PATH, soffice never launches.  The
splash screen comes up & 3 or 4 soffice processes startup & consume processor
until killed.

If I replace /usr/local/jdk-1.5.0/jre/bin
with /usr/local/jdk-1.3.1-linux/jre/bin in the $PATH, soffice starts up, but
on opening a document the same thing happens.

If I omit java from the $PATH, it seems to work. I'm setting the PATH at the
top of /usr/local/openoffice/programs/soffice, since that seemed to be the
place to export it w/o losing java for the rest of my programs.

Frank

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Robert Nagy
In reply to this post by Tobias Ulmer
Hi.

I've attached the start of the openoffice port infrastructure.
The openoffice-linux is port is based on Tobias' port and there
are mods by me and some stuff from NetBSD.
In the meantime I am working on the native port of openoffice
that will be placed to the same directory. (ports/editors/openoffice).

If noone objects I will commit it.

openoffice.tar.gz (35K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Nikolay Sturm-2
* Robert Nagy [2006-04-09]:
> In the meantime I am working on the native port of openoffice that
> will be placed to the same directory. (ports/editors/openoffice).
 
What's the point? Just import your current port as editors/openoffice
and if you ever get the native version done, update the port. I don't
see why we would want to keep both versions.

> If noone objects I will commit it.

That port is totally not cleened up, so yes, I object to importing it.

Nikolay

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Peter Valchev
> > In the meantime I am working on the native port of openoffice that
> > will be placed to the same directory. (ports/editors/openoffice).
>  
> What's the point? Just import your current port as editors/openoffice
> and if you ever get the native version done, update the port. I don't
> see why we would want to keep both versions.

It's not really openoffice though, it's linux-emulated-binary and as
such definitely should be called openoffice-linux to make that clear.
Just like we've named flashplugin-linux...

Personally I'm not fond of this but I guess folks'll find it useful.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Nikolay Sturm-2
* Peter Valchev [2006-04-09]:
> It's not really openoffice though, it's linux-emulated-binary and as
> such definitely should be called openoffice-linux to make that clear.
> Just like we've named flashplugin-linux...

Do you mean opera-flashplugin? Neither opera nor acroread have linux
in their package or port name either. Still, having a subdir openoffice
doesn't make sense to me. Just add openoffice-linux, later add
openoffice and remove openoffice-linux. Or is there going to be a bunch
of openoffice related ports?

Nikolay

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opinions about editors/openoffice-linux

Peter Valchev
> Do you mean opera-flashplugin? Neither opera nor acroread have linux
> in their package or port name either. Still, having a subdir openoffice
> doesn't make sense to me. Just add openoffice-linux, later add
> openoffice and remove openoffice-linux. Or is there going to be a bunch
> of openoffice related ports?

Oh yes, definitely no subdir, misunderstanding here.  I jsut think
it makes sense to call it "openoffice-linux" if it will be imported
at all, as it should not be confused for when a real port is
added (and that one deleted).