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

Re: StarOffice 5.1 segfaults



Dave Dash <dave_dash@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am running potato and during the last week Star
> Office fails to run and gives a segmentation fault. 
> Anybody else get this?
> 
> 
> ===
> ________________________
> Dave Dash
> http://www.ftmax.com/

Yep. I got it to partially work, but not well, by doing the following:

First:
D/L'd the glibc they hand out at stardivisions website. I stuck the libs
from that in /usr/local/Office51/glibc. (I *didn't* follow the readme.)

Second:
Ran this hack of the soffice script
-- 8< --
#!/bin/sh

SOFFICE=/usr/local/Office51
SFONTS=$SOFFICE/fonts
java_ld_library_path=`$SOFFICE/bin/javaldx`
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$java_ld_library_path
THREADS_TYPE=native_threads
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$SOFFICE/lib:$SOFFICE/glibc:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH

SAL_FONTPATH=$SFONTS/type1,$SFONTS/75dpi
XPPATH=$SOFFICE/xp3

export SAL_FONTPATH XPPATH

$SOFFICE/glibc/ld-linux.so.2 $SOFFICE/bin/soffice.bin \
  "$1" "$2" "$3" "$4" "$5" "$6" "$7" "$8" "$9"

-- 8< --

It's basically the same as the provided soffice shell script but with
low portability in mind. 8)

Unfortunately, this only makes the soffice.bin run, the other binaries need
wrappers too in order to work...but it gets messy making sure that you
move the .bin's to some .bin.bak and faking the system calls with a
.bin shell script like the one above.

Not sure if this is a good way..?? Somehow to set the ld-linux.so.2 to
use for all programs run from a script.....open to suggestions here...

BTW, it starts up, but that's about as useful as it gets. I couldn't print,
save, or open from what I tried (probably due to plugin manager not starting).
And it acts like I'm passing it filenames to open when it first starts. Maybe
trying to open whatever was open last or something...

Doesn't segfault tho. :)

HTH,

-- 
- mike  http://ctelcom.net/mike/ -- Debian GNU/Linux  http://www.debian.org/ - 
"To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Romans 16:27 


Reply to: