Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable
> I have OOo 2.0.4 installed from the stable repository. I want to
> install 2.2.1 from backports so I added backports to my sources.
> When I try to install with "aptitude -t etch-backports install
> openoffice.org", aptitude proposes an interesting solution. From
> what I see, I don't think I should accept it. And subsequent
> solutions seem even worse. I have included the first solution
> below. My system is 100% updated, so anything it says about Vim,
> MySql, etc. is a result of trying to install OOo 2.2.1.
> Should I purge OOo first? This is my first attempt to install
> from backports, so I am not sure about this. I have searched, but
> did not find anything helpful.
> ---- Begin Aptitude Output ----
> The following packages are BROKEN:
> openoffice.org-base openoffice.org-calc openoffice.org-common
> openoffice.org-core openoffice.org-draw openoffice.org-evolution
> openoffice.org-gnome openoffice.org-gtk openoffice.org-impress
> openoffice.org-java-common openoffice.org-math
> openoffice.org-writer
> python-uno
> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
> libcurl3 libxt-java
> The following NEW packages will be automatically installed:
> libportaudio2 openoffice.org-filter-binfilter
> openoffice.org-filter-mobiledev openoffice.org-style-andromeda
> The following packages have been kept back:
> kdelibs-data kdelibs4c2a kdemultimedia-kio-plugins ktuberling
> libarts1-akode libfinance-quote-perl libkcddb1 libkdegames1
> libmysqlclient15off libpisock9 libpisync0 linux-image-2.6-486
> mysql-client-5.0 mysql-common mysql-server-5.0
> openoffice.org-help-en-us ttf-opensymbol tuxpaint tuxpaint-config
> tuxpaint-data vim-common vim-full vim-gui-common vim-runtime vim-tiny
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> libportaudio2 openoffice.org-filter-binfilter
> openoffice.org-filter-mobiledev openoffice.org-style-andromeda
> The following packages will be upgraded:
> openoffice.org .....
> ....Install the following packages:
> openoffice.org-style-crystal [2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> openoffice.org-style-hicontrast [2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> openoffice.org-style-industrial [2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> openoffice.org-style-tango [2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> Upgrade the following packages:
> openoffice.org-base [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) ->
> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1
> (etch-backports)] openoffice.org-calc [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable,
> now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)] openoffice.org-draw
> [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> openoffice.org-evolution [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) ->
> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)] openoffice.org-gnome
> [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> openoffice.org-gtk [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1
> (etch-backports)] openoffice.org-impress [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable,
> now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)] openoffice.org-math
> [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> openoffice.org-writer [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 (stable, now) ->
> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)] python-uno [2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1
> (stable, now) -> 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 (etch-backports)]
> Score is -246
> Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]
> ---- End Aptitude Output ----
It looks fine to me; so, I would just accept it. It just seems to be
upgrading openoffice.org, as opposed to wanting to do something
drastic, like remove your xserver, or something. I upgraded
openoffice.org using backports, and it works fine.
Disclaimer: in spite of what I said, you know your system the best,
and, therefore, are the best judge of what to do; so, if your gut
instinct says "no", then go with that. There isn't a noticeable
difference between openoffice.org 2.04 and openoffice.org 2.2.1, anyway.
Mark
Reply to: