From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 2 19:44:01 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: openoffice@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D333106564A for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:44:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00098FC0A for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:43:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.22]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2009 15:43:55 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.10.5-GA) with ESMTP id PYC32567; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 209-6-22-188.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.22.188]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2009 15:43:25 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18981.32988.761594.321087@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:43:24 -0400 To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith In-Reply-To: <4A25791C.8060802@missouri.edu> References: <18981.9854.46085.436356@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <4A25791C.8060802@missouri.edu> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net) Cc: openoffice@freebsd.org Subject: Re: failed build for ooo-3.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:44:01 -0000 Stephen Montgomery-Smith writes: > My guess is that you are using CURRENT that was built sometime during > mid-May, which left a bug, either in tar or gzip. From uname: Tue Apr 21 11:03:07 EDT 2009 > Try adjusting the makefile so as to trick the makefile into > skipping this step (because although you had an error the step > was actually performed). Could you _please_ be a little more specific? :-) > Or rebuild your CURRENT to a more recent version. Theoretically, yes. Operationally ... currently not the path of least resistance. Robert Huff