incubator-ooo-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From NoOp <>
Subject Re: Mozilla-like installation for Linux?
Date Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:58:54 GMT
On 03/22/2012 10:56 PM, Terry wrote:
> The post below reminds me of an old chestnut.  Linux versions are now
>  packaged as rpms or debs.  That could be problematic if the
> installer works in a way which is incompatible with a particular
> operating system (OS).
> That problem is always on my mind.  Try as I have, I have been unable
> to find (so far) a Linux OS which suits me as well as my present one.
> I have also been unable to find a Linux operating system which
> supports OpenOffice.  Sooner or later, I will quite possibly have to
> switch to LibreOffice just because the OO installer borks my OS.

Which distro?

The .deb files install to the /opt directory so there is not
interference with a system installed OO. I have multiple OO's installed
on this system, including the original distro supplied OOo 3.2:

$ locate soffice.bin

I'd have to fire up Fedora in a VM to find out where the .rpm files are
installed, but I seem to recollect that they also were installed /opt?

> My recollection is that several years ago there was at least a 
> discussion about the possibility of a package of the same kind as 
> Firefox and Thunderbird.  Mozilla provides a compressed folder 
> containing everything you need apart from plugins and, I dare say, 
> Mozilla could include plugins if it wanted to.
> In other words, the Mozilla software does NOT interfere with the
> operating system.  It is self-contained.

That would most likely make things easier for some, more difficult for
others. On the latter; I prefer having separate .deb packages as then I
can cull the unwanted dictionaries etc., before installing. Also, the
program is so large that I find it nice to be able to watch the terminal
log & if a .deb package failed to install, see the error message for
that particular package.
> That may be too big an issue for bugs.  Does anyone think it worth
> raising the issue and, if so, through which channel?
> Terry
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <> To:
>> Cc: Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 1:26
>> PM Subject: Re: CVE-2012-0037: data leakage
>> vulnerability
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM, NoOp <> wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2012 03:17 PM, Terry wrote:
>>>> This quote from the page mentioned by Rob:
>>>> <quote>Linux and other platforms should consult their distro or
>> OS
>>>> vendor for patch instructions.</quote>
>>>> My distro doesn't support OpenOffice; most, I gather, don't.
>>> ...
>> This is good to know, very good in fact.  We were working on
>> several assumptions:
>> 1) There were some users running OOo 3.3 on commercially supported
>> LTS Linux builds. In those cases we did not want to encourage the
>> user to mess with their files directly. It is important in those
>> cases that they get the patch from their vendor.
>> 2) Other users would just be using the latest distro support, which
>> in most cases have silently switched OOo to LibreOffice.   Since 
>> LibreOffice also fixed this same issue, such users would also get
>> the patch via their vendor's update mechanism.
>> What we did not know is the number of Linux users who uninstalled 
>> LibreOffice and manually installed OOo 3.3 instead.  From the
>> sounds of it, there are many such users.  Me bad for missing that.
>> But good for the future of the project that there are so many with
>> a preference for OpenOffice.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message