[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sun-report-builder and etch-backport of openoffice 2.3.1



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Henri Trois Moulins wrote:
> With etch-backport of openoffice 2.3.1, is it possible use the
> sun-report-builder extension from their homepage ?
> (http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/reportdesign)

No, it isn't. Due to Suns broken oliy decisions. They include librpt*

(see below) as a no-op into openoffice.org-base. I don't see a sense to
include ~3 MB as no-op only to install the report builder. Thus I packge
librpt* into -report-builder. As the package contains the extension
anyway...

See also http://dba.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=2678

> Actually, I didn't succeed  :-)

Exactly, because you miss the librpt* libraries (which normally are
no-ops) for the oxt to work correctly.

> (There is a specific package for sid : openoffice.org-report-builder.)

I thought about whether I should enable it for the backport but that
would have required to backport a dozen of Java libs (see
http://packages.debian.org/sid/openoffice.org-report-builder) and
the (build)depends of those.... Maybe I will do it in the future...

Using the internal Java libs of those (which is for OOos case a common
solution for backports) would be possible if Sun fixed the jfreereport
jars' build system to not require using binary-only jars in their zips
(which of course have been removed in Debian) - it's planned for 2.4,
though.

> Any help will be extremely appreciated ... and happy new year !

If you want the report-builder, you either need to backport the
plenthora of Java libs in *exactly* the same versions so I can use them
and enable the build of -report-builder for the etch-backport. Or you
use Suns "packages". Or you use sid.

Regards,

Rene
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHct9t+FmQsCSK63MRAs/yAJwJ+cQvdhj+LCnhBiYk9wuIYNf60wCdF07/
V6ehoFnsc7d0Eh9SHkn7hPc=
=cygE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply to: