Issue 87732

Setting target 3.0

Do we want this for the Unix/X11 desktop integration packages as well ? They are trimmed to take precedence over earlier versions of OOo, which is probably not what users expect from a Beta.

Disabling this without breaking the functionality needs intensive testing, so can't we just leave out the 
desktop integration packages for Beta ?

Also taking care of system integration packages (Todo OBR).

Unix desktop integration has moved to the same naming scheme as the brand packages.

is -> of: please verify in cws native141

reassigning

is: fixed by removing all Unix system integration packages from installation set.

OF: Verified in cws native141. Additional fixes in issue 88051.

*** Issue 88357 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

"is: fixed by removing all Unix system integration packages from installation set."

I want to use the 3.0 dev builds as the only office installation since I have
positive experience with OOo pre release builds. So kudos to the devs! :-)

Is this package available seperatly since I would like to have these OOo builds
integrated into the system. (Start menu links, file associations.)

of wrote that this problem would be fixed in m8 (native 141)

I fond this problem also in DEV300_m9 so I reopen it and set it as blocker for
Beta version

add CC

What exact is the problem with m9?

I confirm that m9 still fails to set file associations and start menu links.

(I mean the Linux build. I have not tested the Windows build.)

I use Debian/Lenny (testing)

The problem is you can't install DEV300_m9 without deleting further versions.

This means if you aren't a programmer you have to delete more than 30 packages
separate one by one.

Then you have the problem that ooo-core01 depends on ooo-core04 and ooo-core04
depends on ooo-core01 and so on.

So you need more information to do it with dpkg as a normal tester have about a
deb system.

As I read the error messages you also can't install the DEV3000 version nearby
the version 2.4 and also can't do an update.

therefore it is a P1 for me.

I've had no problem to install OOo 2.4 and DEV300_m9 on my Ubuntu machine. So I
can't imagine that this will be a problem on Debian. And according to the
summary this issue is fixed.

I use Debian/Lenny (testing)

The problem is you can't install DEV300_m9 without deleting further versions.

This means if you aren't a programmer you have to delete more than 30 packages
separate one by one.

Then you have the problem that ooo-core01 depends on ooo-core04 and ooo-core04
depends on ooo-core01 and so on.

So you need more information to do it with dpkg as a normal tester have about a
deb system.

As I read the error messages you also can't install the DEV3000 version nearby
the version 2.4 and also can't do an update.

therefore it is a P1 for me.

"As I read the error messages you also can't install the DEV3000 version nearby
the version 2.4 and also can't do an update."
But I have installed DEV300_m9 beside OOo 2.4. Updating OOo 2.4 with DEV300_mX
doesn't make sense so I don't see the problem.

I can attach the dpkg.log of my installing on weekend
it doesn't show the error messages but showing that many packages can't be
installed before removing some others.

I also try to do another installation to get also the error messages.

Created attachment 53090 [details]
Installation LOg of DEV_m9

TRe log shows no OOo 2.4 entry. Therefore I think I can set this issue to
'fixed' again.

I agree with Olaf: the log indicates that OOo 2.4 has already been 'upgraded' to DEV300_m3 and since 
then we broke the upgrade path nearly every second minor, so there were packages left from m3, m5 and 
m7 that conflicted with the ones from m9 and needed to be removed manually.

Sorry, we clearly missed to put a big 'Warning' sign on top of these packages. 

However, I see no evidence that installing a plain OOo 2.4 in parallel with DEV300_m9 would still not be 
possible, thus I set _this_ issue to 'FIXED' again.

I almost forgot to mention that currenlty the OOo-Dev builds use the same
package naming scheme as the OpenOffice.org version for most of the packages,
which makes the situation even worse ATM. I have submitted Issue 88570 to track
this problem.

The fix has been verified in cws native141.

Looks good for me in master of dev300_m9/m10

Added "integrated" to the title, because it makes it much easier to work with the meta 
issue

Is this issue really 'closed' and 'fixed'?

I installed ver.3 beta.
Then, ver. 2.4.1 came on the scene, but Install refused to proceed, telling me
to remove a 'newer' version first. Which 'newer' version? The only non-beta
version I have is 2.3.1.
I use Windows XP.

OOForum comment: by acknak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:00 pm
Well, I can only imagine that it's confused by having a OOo 3 snapshot installed.
As far as I can see it's a bug in the installer.

Is this issue really 'closed' and 'fixed'?

I installed ver.3 beta.
Then, ver. 2.4.1 came on the scene, but Install refused to proceed, telling me
to remove a 'newer' version first. Which 'newer' version? The only non-beta
version I have is 2.3.1.
I use Windows XP.

OOForum comment: by acknak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:00 pm
Well, I can only imagine that it's confused by having a OOo 3 snapshot installed.
As far as I can see it's a bug in the installer.

This is fixed fore OOo 3.0 beta. More you can see in issue 90361.