Re: Bug#357449: openoffice.org-dev: IDLC concatenation string bug when calling IDLCPP
Le vendredi 17 mars 2006 à 15:22 +0100, Miguel Telleria de Esteban a
écrit :
> El vie, 17-03-2006 a las 14:43 +0100, Rene Engelhard escribió:
> > Am Freitag 17 März 2006 14:12 schrieb Miguel Telleria de Esteban:
> > > strace shows that when IDLC (idlc.bin) calls idlcpp (the preprocessor), it
> > > actually calls a nonexistent file "idlcidlcpp".
> > >
> > > A simple workaround is creating a simbolic link idlcidlcpp->idlcpp.
> > >
> > > The problem seems to be in the file idlcompile.cxx. It looks as the
> > > copy method of cpp would not be able to delete characters on its own
> > > string. A suggested patch (not tried actually) is attached in which I
> > > create a temporary second variable.
> > >
> > > I don't know if the problem persists in the OpenOffice SDK of 2.0
> > > version.
> >
> > From looking at the source; this might work on 2.0.2 (and the source is
> > indentical with 2.0.1). Can you try the 2.0.1 on bpo and confirm this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rene
Hi Miguel! ;-)
> Sorry for my low culture level, but I don't see at the moment what "bpo"
> means :).
This is the backport of OOo2 for Sarge available on backports.org.
In your /etc/apt/sources.list:
# OOo2 Backports
deb http://www.backports.org/debian sarge-backports main
In your /etc/apt/preferences:
Package: *
Pin: release a=stable
Pin-Priority: 998
Package: *
Pin: origin www.backports.org
Pin-Priority: 200
Package: openoffice.org
Pin: origin www.backports.org
Pin-Priority: 999
Hope it helps.
> However for using a Oo 2.0.2 I warn you that I only have a sarge machine
> and an Ubuntu Breezy.
See here before.
> I don't have any incovenience in trying some backports or alternate
> source lines if you can point me to where I can get them.
Done.
> Another option would be to take only the IDLC sources and required
> libraries and make a moderate quick build. I don't have the
> infraestructure to build the whole OpenOffice monster :).
Hope you can test it soon.
> Regards,
>
> Miguel
Reply to: