Re: [SLE] OpenOffice 641D aborts
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On April 1, 2002 01:29 pm, Philip Burness wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On April 1, 2002 11:35 am, Philip Burness wrote:
I have downloaded and installed OpenOffice 641D and installed as setup -net, and as a user. when I try and run soffice I get some messages on the console about the Euro, I then get the splash screen and then it aborts (it echo's aborted to the console). I am running SuSE 7.2 with a 2.4.4 kernel and KDE3rc3, XFree 4.1.0, I have a PIII 850MHz and 1GB RAM.
Anybody know why it aborts? Or where I can look for errors that might point me in the fix direction?
This happened to me with build 642. I ran it a second time and it worked perfectly.
Did you re-install it or just run it? I have tried just running it several times and always the same result. Do I need to uninstall soffice 5.2?
I just ran soffice again. I did not uninstall 5.2. I should note that I am using 642 (developer version) and not 641D (so-called stable version). I also did the install as root using the /net option into /opt/OpenOffice.org642. I did the install as root with the /net option. I then also installed as a regular user. I get the same result if I use KDE2 or Gnome 1.4 so I guess it's not the window manager. It aborts irrespective of which user I am :-(( also. I installed into /opt/OpenOffice.org641D. Guess I'll have to wait for the *really* stable version. Phil
Philip Burness wrote:
I did the install as root with the /net option. I then also installed as a regular user. I get the same result if I use KDE2 or Gnome 1.4 so I guess it's not the window manager. It aborts irrespective of which user I am :-(( also. I installed into /opt/OpenOffice.org641D. Guess I'll have to wait for the *really* stable version.
Phil
Hi: I have installed 642 on two stock 7.3 machines and 641d on three stock 7.3 machines. None of these machines had any trouble with the install or running the program on the first try, or behavior as described. I think the problem might not be OO per se, but perhaps a problem with KDE3, Suse 7.2, or an interaction between them an OO that doesn't occur on 7.3. Just a data point. Good day. ____________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarle@sandia.gov
At 12:55 04/01/2002 -0800, Christopher R. Carlen wrote: /snip/
Hi:
I have installed 642 on two stock 7.3 machines and 641d on three stock 7.3 machines. None of these machines had any trouble with the install or running the program on the first try, or behavior as described.
I think the problem might not be OO per se, but perhaps a problem with KDE3, Suse 7.2, or an interaction between them an OO that doesn't occur on 7.3.
Just a data point.
Good day.
____________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarle@sandia.gov
Since another correspondent said go get 641D right away, it's the last chance, and now you say you are installing 642, please enlighten the rest of us, what's up? Should we get 641D? Or is 642 ready to fly? Thanx. --doug
On Monday 01 April 2002 07:13 pm, Doug McGarrett wrote:
Since another correspondent said go get 641D right away, it's the last chance, and now you say you are installing 642, please enlighten the rest of us, what's up? Should we get 641D? Or is 642 ready to fly? Thanx. --doug
Sorry for the confusion. I did not say to get OO641D right away. I said that there have been some improvements, and that if you would like to contribute to the 1.0 release, then get the 641D release as it is the last test build. 642 is the development, unstable build. I pointed this out because some people tend to complain on this list about software packages they don't like instead of taking some time to contribute. Here is a chance to contribute, FWIW.
participants (4)
-
Christopher R. Carlen
-
Doug McGarrett
-
Philip Burness
-
Ron Cordell