Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing |
Summary: | DEV300_m20 installation fails - integrated | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | General | Reporter: | noop <noop> | ||||||||
Component: | code | Assignee: | ingo.schmidt-rosbiegal | ||||||||
Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | issues@framework <issues> | ||||||||
Severity: | Trivial | ||||||||||
Priority: | P1 (highest) | CC: | issues, jbf.faure, mechtilde | ||||||||
Version: | OOo 3.0 Beta | ||||||||||
Target Milestone: | OOo 3.0 | ||||||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||||||
OS: | Linux, all | ||||||||||
URL: | http://qa.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=10671 | ||||||||||
Issue Type: | DEFECT | Latest Confirmation in: | --- | ||||||||
Developer Difficulty: | --- | ||||||||||
Issue Depends on: | |||||||||||
Issue Blocks: | 87736 | ||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
noop
2008-06-22 02:04:02 UTC
I think this problem wontfix In the developer process it is a normal process that some files changes the packages. The update DEV300_m19 -> DEV300_m20 works . M19 apparently had the exact same issue, see: http://qa.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=10671 If OOo wish assistance in testing these versions, then the installation packages must be corrected as well. Further, I'd appreciate it if you didn't change the summary of the report. As mentioned: <quote> At first I thought that perhaps the errors may have been due to not uninstalling m17 first, so I ran the installs again after completely purging m17 including the /opt directories and the /home/<username>/.ooo-dev3 directories. Install errors were the same. </quote> Leave the issue closed if you wish, but at this point I'm purging m20 as well It fails installation and leaves broken packages on my systems. The mail describe updating m17 -> m19 and you (noop) describe updating m17-> m20 So this describe the same Problem. The content of the packages changes between m17 and m19. Nobody describe an update problem m19 -> m20. So the problem is fixed Therefore I changed the summary. Created attachment 54668 [details]
Binfilter Control files
Created attachment 54669 [details]
m19 installation log
Perhaps there is a language (or comprehension) problem here. So I'll try once again: m17 was _completely_ purged from my systems and _then_ I attempted to perform an installation of m20. The result of that effort is provided in the initial post of this bug. The _clean_ installation of m20 fails due to dependency errors in two packages: ooobasis3.0-binfilter and ooobasis3.0-en-us-binfilter. Hence _my_ summary "DEV300_m20 installation fails". I've reopened the issue as I've demonstrated that there are installation issues with m20 (and m19) that will need to be resolved for m21. There is NO update issue regarding this bug, it is a standard installation issue. Further, m19 has the exact same issues (I've just performed the same installation process on another _clean_ system). The control files in both reference different files than those provided in the Oo-Dev_DEV300_m20_LinuxIntel_install_en-US_deb.tar.gz and the Oo-Dev_DEV300_m19_LinuxIntel_install_en-US_deb.tar.gz packages. A copy of the control files for both m19 and m20 are attached. A copy of the m19 install terminal output is attached. If these issues aren't fixed, then m21 will continue to have the exact same _installation_ problems. Closing/wontfix isn't a solution. Changing the summary so that it is clearly false and misleading with regard to what the reporter submitted won't help resolve the issue. There is exactly the same issue in Dev300_m19 and Dev300_m20. It seems to me that the issue is only in the namming of binfilter packages as I explained in my mail to dev@qa (http://qa.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=10671). After having removed binfilter packages from packages directectory, I installed m20 without any problem and m20 works fine (without binfilter fonctionnalities of course). I think it is a bad method to have to force installation with -nodep flag. @ is: Please have a look. add to CC M21 has the same issue. M21 install log attached. Created attachment 54714 [details]
M21 install log
Same problem occurs for the rpm install: # cd DEV300_m20_native_packed-1_en-US.9318/RPMS # rpm -ivh --prefix=/mnt/extra/opt/DEV300_m20 *.rpm error: Failed dependencies: ooobasis3.0-calc is needed by ooobasis3.0-binfilter-3.0.0-9318.i586 ooobasis3.0-draw is needed by ooobasis3.0-binfilter-3.0.0-9318.i586 ooobasis3.0-impress is needed by ooobasis3.0-binfilter-3.0.0-9318.i586 ooobasis3.0-math is needed by ooobasis3.0-binfilter-3.0.0-9318.i586 ooobasis3.0-writer is needed by ooobasis3.0-binfilter-3.0.0-9318.i586 ooobasis3.0-en-US is needed by ooobasis3.0-en-US-binfilter-3.0.0-9318.i586 I think I first noticed this with m19, but I'm not 100% sure of that. Certainly m19, m20 and now m21 all had the same problem. I always install the snapshots as a clean install, not an upgrade. I don't really understand the details of rpm packaging, but this looks like it may be a simple naming mismatch: e.g. binfilter requires "ooobasis3.0-calc" but none of the calc package provides that exact name: # for pkg in `rpm -qa | grep ooobasis.*-calc`; do echo "$pkg:"; rpm -q --provides "$pkg"|sed -e 's/^/ /'; done ooobasis-dev3.0-en-US-calc-3.0.0-9319.i586: ooobasis-dev30-en_US-calc ooobasis-dev3.0-en-US-calc = 3.0.0-9319 ooobasis-dev3.0-calc-3.0.0-9319.i586: ooobasis-dev3.0-calc = 3.0.0-9319 Ah, I see. The problem is caused by including two different cws from which one includes new packges (binfilter) and another cws includes a new naming schema. For ooo-dev builds there are no more ooobasis* packages, therefore the installation fails. I already fixed this in cws native163 that is included into dev300 m22. So this problem no longer occurs. If you have a dev installation set < m22 the only solution is to remove the binfilter packages or use "--nodeps". If you create installation sets, the fix is to exchange all occurences of "ooobasis" by "%BASISPACKAGEPREFIX" in the two files setup_native/source/packinfo/packinfo_office.txt and setup_native/source/packinfo/packinfo_office_lang.txt That's all. Sorry for the inconvenience. thanks to all working on this Also fixed as masterfix for BEB300 m1. added "integrated" to the title added "integrated" to the title Confirm that OOo-Dev_DEV300_m22_LinuxIntel_install_en-US_deb.tar.gz installs properly on Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy) and Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy). Thanks! verified in DEV300_m22 but following by http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91279 so closed Confirmed for rpm install also: no dependency failure (as of m22). Thanks! |