Issue 119373 - Request for AOO binary distribution in generic Linux tarball format
Summary: Request for AOO binary distribution in generic Linux tarball format
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Installation
Classification: Application
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: 3.4.0 Beta (OOo)
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P3 Normal with 4 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL: http://user.services.openoffice.org/e...
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-05-17 15:02 UTC by zibeli
Modified: 2013-07-10 22:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description zibeli 2012-05-17 15:02:51 UTC
I installed OpenOffice 3.3.0 from a generic GNU/Linux tarball version downloaded from Oracle, but for AOO version 3.4 I find only RPM and DEB package manager versions on the download page at http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html

Is there any chance of a plain tarball version of the binaries being offered for those who do not use package managers?
Comment 1 Marcus 2012-05-17 18:44:39 UTC
When it was active at Sun and Oracle, OOo wasn't distributed as a generic .tar.gz (or similr) install set, only RPM and DEB files; at least not for official releases.

Can you name the complete filename for your OOo .3.3.0 install file? Do you remember from where exatly you downloaded the file, e.g., hostname, URL? Maybe it's possible to see from were the install file came.

Currently it's indeed only possible to get RPM or DEB files for AOO 3.4.0. I think this won't change for the next planned release AOO 3.4.1. But maybe for future releases.
Comment 2 zibeli 2012-05-17 21:58:57 UTC
Marcus, You're right - I checked the drive with my original software downloads and it appears I installed 3.3.0 from a source distribution rather than a binary.tarball.  Sorry for the mixup and thanks for setting me straight.

I don't seem to have saved the procedures I used to build it, but when I get a chance I'll dig around and see if I can sort it out again for the current release.  I still think a binary tarball would be a very worthwhile future addition to the downloads page, however, and hope it will happen.
Comment 3 Terry 2012-05-18 00:49:50 UTC
I have an rpm system but the AOO rpms are (obviously) not produced for my system.  The developers of the system have repeatedly advised us not to install rpms not in the system repositories.

A tar ball installation (such as Firefox) would be safer for users in that situation.  It could, indeed, replace all Linux versions.  Instructions to add system menu selections could accompany it.
Comment 4 Ariel Constenla-Haile 2012-05-18 02:33:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have an rpm system but the AOO rpms are (obviously) not produced for my
> system.  The developers of the system have repeatedly advised us not to
> install rpms not in the system repositories.
> 
> A tar ball installation (such as Firefox) would be safer for users in that
> situation.  It could, indeed, replace all Linux versions.  Instructions to
> add system menu selections could accompany it.

AOO Linux binaries are rather "universal", you can install them without much trouble. Anyway, you can try rpm2cio:

- untar the AOO file
- in a terminal, cd to the folder with the rpm packages, and exectue the following command:

for i in *.rpm; do rpm2cpio $i | cpio -idv; done

This will extract all the content of the RPM packages in a folder named opt
Then simply copy that folder content to /opt

sudo cp -rf opt/* /opt/

You can do the same for the RPM in the folder RPMS/desktop-integration


Something similar can be done for DEB based distros.
Comment 5 Terry 2012-06-06 23:33:45 UTC
I know about cpio.  My point is that a tar ball such as Mozilla uses would work for all Linux users without any special knowledge or jiggery pokery required.

The Linux segment of the market is very small.  The effort to produce versions for a very small segment of that very small segment seems disproportionate.

Furthermore, as the OP points out, not all Linux distros use rpm or deb.