| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:03 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Walter Dnes did |
| 2 |
opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:21:21AM -0300, Fernando Antunes wrote |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Yesterday I emerged Libreoffice-bin 3.4 and the installation worked fine. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > However, when I try to run it, I receive this error message : |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Failed to execute child process "libreoffice3.4" (No such file or |
| 11 |
> > directory). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Applications generally do *NOT* use the version number in the |
| 14 |
> executable name, or even the fact that they're a "bin" version. You |
| 15 |
> just supply the base filename on the commandline. E.g., I have |
| 16 |
> "libreoffice-bin-3.3.2" installed. It is launched with the command |
| 17 |
> "libreoffice". I have "gimp-2.6.11" installed. It is launched with the |
| 18 |
> command "gimp". |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> A few programs allow multiple versions. They have the real executable |
| 21 |
> in a working directory, and a symlink in /etc/usr/bin which points to |
| 22 |
> the real executable. So you launch the main version with the regular |
| 23 |
> command. You can also launch other installed versions by supplying the |
| 24 |
> full pathname to its working directory. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
+1 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Looks like this ebuild was rushed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
3.4.0 fails for any language other than "en" due to a typo in the ebuild: |
| 32 |
#370179 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
AFAICS the desktop files are installed as-is from the rpms containing this: |
| 35 |
Exec=libreoffice3.4 --writer %U |
| 36 |
but there's a dosym call missing in the ebuild |
| 37 |
#370345 references the issue but it hasn't been addressed yet |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I have only two words: |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
shoddy work |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives