From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 04:01:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EC316A4CE for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:01:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3293443D2F for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:01:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9J411Kl090451; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:01:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200410190401.i9J411Kl090451@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:01:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis To: scottro@nyc.rr.com In-Reply-To: <20041019013849.GA84365@scottro11.homeunix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: openoffice@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: possible PR? X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:01:09 -0000 On 18 Oct, Scott Robbins wrote: > I have run into the following issue--I'm not sure how unique my > situation may or may not be, which is why I'm not sure if it merits a PR > or not. > FreeBSD 5.3-BETA7. This is an upgrade from 5.2.1 and I have the > compat4x libraries. > > > I had openoffice-1.1.3 installed. > > I attempted to do a portupgrade of openoffice as follows > portupgrade -Rr -m WITHOUT_JAVA=yes -m WITHOUT_MOZILLA=yes. > > It failed (I'll give more specifics in a moment.) > I then tried uninstalling OO completely and removed all distfiles > in the /usr/ports/distfiles/openoffice-1.1/ directory. > > I tried doing it WITHOUT_JAVA=yes and WITHOUT_MOZILLA=yes and then tried > doing it while leaving those two out. > > This is the output--this is from an example where I didn't do > WITHOUT_JAVA and WITHOUT_MOZILLA > > > ==> Extracting for openoffice-1.1.4.20041012 >>> Checksum OK for openoffice1.1/OOo_1.1.4.20041012_source.tar.bz2. >>> Checksum OK for openoffice1.1/gpc231.tar.Z. >>> Checksum OK for openoffice1.1/patch-openoffice-mozilla101-2002-10-14. >>> Checksum OK for openoffice1.1/mozilla-vendor-1.0.2a.tgz. > ===> openoffice-1.1.4.20041012 depends on file: > /usr/local/bin/perl5.8.5 - found > ===> Patching for openoffice-1.1.4.20041012 > ===> openoffice-1.1.4.20041012 depends on file: > /usr/local/bin/perl5.8.5 - found > ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for openoffice-1.1.4.20041012 > Ignoring previously applied (or reversed) patch. > 1 out of 1 hunks ignored--saving rejects to > instsetoo/util/openoffice.lst.rej >>> Patch patch-1.1.3-1.1.4 failed to apply cleanly. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1-devel. > ** Command failed [exit code 1]: /usr/bin/script -qa > /tmp/portupgrade78762.1 make > ** Fix the problem and try again. Same here. It looks like the first chunk of files/patch-1.1.3-1.1.4 is reversed. Applying the following patch (to the patch) allows "make patch" succeed. I don't yet know if the build will succeed. Index: editors/openoffice-1.1-devel/files/patch-1.1.3-1.1.4 =================================================================== RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1-devel/files/patch-1.1.3-1.1.4,v retrieving revision 1.1 diff -u -r1.1 patch-1.1.3-1.1.4 --- editors/openoffice-1.1-devel/files/patch-1.1.3-1.1.4 15 Oct 2004 06:02:39 -0000 1.1 +++ editors/openoffice-1.1-devel/files/patch-1.1.3-1.1.4 19 Oct 2004 03:46:26 -0000 @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ variables { PRODUCTNAME OpenOffice.org -- PRODUCTVERSION 1.1.4 -+ PRODUCTVERSION 1.1.3 +- PRODUCTVERSION 1.1.3 ++ PRODUCTVERSION 1.1.4 PRODUCTEXTENSION LONG_PRODUCTEXTENSION EVAL