libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

I'm surprised that this problem hasn't already been posted here.

For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.

The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
installed on your machine. A gentoo bug report was filed by our own
Nikos Chantziaras -- who did not post a headsup to this list :p

The fix is to downgrade bison to the 'stable' version 2.4.3, as stated
in Nikos's bug report.

Happy week-end to all :)

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> I'm surprised that this problem hasn't already been posted here.
>
> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
>
> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> installed on your machine. A gentoo bug report was filed by our own
> Nikos Chantziaras -- who did not post a headsup to this list :p
>
> The fix is to downgrade bison to the 'stable' version 2.4.3, as stated
> in Nikos's bug report.
>
> Happy week-end to all :)

Thanks for that. I upgraded my ~x86 laptop today and a bunch of things
did break but revdep-rebuild appears to have handled it.

I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine.

--
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On Fri, 20 May 2011 15:34:59 -0700, walt wrote:

> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.

Although LO appears to continue working fine without the rebuild, at
least for my basic usage.

> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> installed on your machine. A gentoo bug report was filed by our own
> Nikos Chantziaras -- who did not post a headsup to this list :p
>
> The fix is to downgrade bison to the 'stable' version 2.4.3, as stated
> in Nikos's bug report.

There's a patch to fix this without downgrading at


--
Neil Bothwick

QOTD:
The only easy way to tell a hamster from a gerbil is that the
gerbil has more dark meat.

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:

>> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
>> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
>>
>> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5

> I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine.

Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
not at run time.

I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.

I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to discover
that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to ape a change
made in M$ Office!

Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove it
myself before compiling it. I was very disappointed to find a major open-
source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On 05/22/2011 01:03 AM, walt wrote:

I was very disappointed to find a major open-
source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(


It needs to. If it's not compatible with M$, people won't use it as much.

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:10:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
>
> >> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> >> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
> >>
> >> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
>
> > I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine.
>
> Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
> not at run time.
>
> I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
> about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.
>
> I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to discover
> that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to ape a change
> made in M$ Office!
>
> Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
> change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove it
> myself before compiling it. I was very disappointed to find a major open-
> source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(

It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone
programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but
if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty
office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit
those office formats in vim...

--
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine
thusly:

> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:10:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> > On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> > >> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> > >> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
> > >>
> > >> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> > >
> > > I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine.
> >
> > Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
> > not at run time.
> >
> > I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
> > about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.
> >
> > I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to
> > discover that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to
> > ape a change made in M$ Office!
> >
> > Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
> > change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove
> > it myself before compiling it. I was very disappointed to find a major
> > open- source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(
>
> It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone
> programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but
> if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty
> office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit
> those office formats in vim...


What makes you think they don't *already* exist?

* app-office/libreoffice-bin-3.3.2
Total files : 8138
Total size : 498.24 MiB

* app-office/koffice-libs-2.3.3
Total files : 697
Total size : 19.45 MiB
* app-office/koffice-data-2.3.3
Total files : 214
Total size : 608.63 KiB
* app-office/karbon-2.3.3
Total files : 160
Total size : 3 MiB
* app-office/kexi-2.3.3
Total files : 337
Total size : 8.17 MiB
* app-office/kpresenter-2.3.3
Total files : 188
Total size : 9.28 MiB
* app-office/krita-2.3.3
Total files : 783
Total size : 26.10 MiB
* app-office/kspread-2.3.3
Total files : 337
Total size : 11.62 MiB
* app-office/kword-2.3.3-r1
Total files : 215
Total size : 7.82 MiB

Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there.

Editing them in something vim-alike is highly unlikely to be useful - compare
antiword. Office suites are gui programs and the gui layout is as important
(if not more so) than the content. And I haven't even touched on graphics
elements yet.

So you may be able to modify the content but probably not the layout. Have a
look inside OOo source code sometimes for a look at what it takes to calculate
something as "simple" as where on the page some text goes.


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine
> thusly:
>
> > It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone
> > programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but
> > if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty
> > office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit
> > those office formats in vim...
>
>
> What makes you think they don't *already* exist?
>

The fact that none of your examples fit the bill.

> Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there.
>

Your definition of "small, fast, and light" strikes me as most
peculiar. Anything that requires a full-bloat DE (or enoough of its libs
it might as well do so) is not "standalone" by any definition, and is unlikely
to be "small, fast, and light". I know all things are relative, but be
real.

--
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

Apparently, though unproven, at 20:26 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine
thusly:

> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did
> > opine
> >
> > thusly:
> > > It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone
> > > programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but
> > > if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty
> > > office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit
> > > those office formats in vim...
> >
> > What makes you think they don't *already* exist?
>
> The fact that none of your examples fit the bill.

s/the/my/

there you go. Fixed that little oversight you made there.

>
> > Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there.
>
> Your definition of "small, fast, and light" strikes me as most
> peculiar. Anything that requires a full-bloat DE (or enoough of its libs
> it might as well do so) is not "standalone" by any definition, and is
> unlikely to be "small, fast, and light". I know all things are relative,
> but be real.

No, I think you need to get real. It's 2011, what did you expect?

Any such project as a small light fast office suite has to include Gnome
and/or KDE support to some degree. Without it, it's just dead in the water.
And it's of sufficient complexity that scratch one's itch is unlikely to go
anywhere - it's not a one person project.

If we have to discuss this logically, you are going to have to define your
terms. What are your requirements?

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

libreoffice versus bison-2.5
 

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:40:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 20:26 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine
> thusly:
>
> > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did
> > > opine
> > >
> > > thusly:
> > > > It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone
> > > > programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but
> > > > if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty
> > > > office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit
> > > > those office formats in vim...
> > >
> > > What makes you think they don't *already* exist?
> >
> > The fact that none of your examples fit the bill.
>
> s/the/my/
>
> there you go. Fixed that little oversight you made there.
>

Expressing my opinion is not an "oversighjt", and I'm sorry you're so
defensive that you can't even tolerate opinions which aren't yours so
you have to "correct" them. Maybe you should just filter me out.

--
Caveat utilitor,
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫
Elaine "Indulekha" Sharpe