Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 54620
1.1.5 Installation errors make install suspect
Last modified: 2005-09-15 20:47:20 UTC
Tried installing under FC4, (Linux localhost 2.6.12-1.1447_FC4 #1 Fri Aug 26 20:29:51 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux) and encountered the following errors as shown in the attached images. This makes me suspect that this is a failed install.
Created attachment 29566 [details] screenshot1
Created attachment 29567 [details] screenshot2
Created attachment 29568 [details] screenshot3
Created attachment 29569 [details] screenshot4
I can't reproduce with a downloaded version from http://ftp.stardiv.de/pub/OpenOffice.org/stable/1.1.5/. Starting ./setup and everything went fine, no such errors. Please be more detailed in your description. We need a step-by-step walkthrough to reproduce.
Please do not resolve an issue when you want information. You are supposed to insert needmoreinfo in the keeyword field and wait some reasonable period of time. At this point we don not know if you have the correct environment in which you tested, we do not know much more. For example, despite having a good md5sum, we don't know if the image I downloaded is corrupted, whether FC4 itself is the source of the problem and likely more. Having re-installed 1.1.4 and rebuilt my working 1.1.4 environment, I will only install 1.1.5 separately. I should also point out that this problem did _NOT_ occur with 1.1.5rc3. No please wait for your information and please post in this issue what you have as an environment. e.g. the output from uname -a.
"Please do not resolve an issue when you want information." Why not? When I get a description that doesn't lead me to a reproducible issue it 'worksforme'. As far as I haven't got this further information this resolution is correct. When I'm acting polite and asking for more information instead of closing the issue there is nothing wrong and I behave right. As long as I haven't got this information it 'worksforme'. I've also used FC4 (2.6.11-1) and the md5 sums are ok. What has OOo 1.1.4 to with this? Did you make an update installation?
"I'm acting polite and asking for more information instead of closing the issue there is nothing wrong and I behave right. As long as I haven't got this information it 'worksforme'." You looked at the issue and at 01h22 you resolved the issue. You did not wait for any information. Your FC4 is not up2date. Please stick with the program. When you want info, ask and wait. After a suitable period of time such as 24 hours from asking, then you can start consider resolving the problem. So until you upgrade you system. Please wait. Thanks. As I said earlier I will have to try again. How I am going to capture sufficient information except by screen captures. Any suggestions?
If I haven't had the intention to wait I would have closed the issue. But I haven't. What you are doing is nitpicking. Give a valid bug description and your issue will be handled accordingly.
I do not think asking the qa person to have the same environment is nitpicking. You do not. Upgrade and we can talk. In the meantime I have attached a zipfile of all the steps I took to reproduce this problem.
Created attachment 29586 [details] zipfile of steps taken
One other thing that needs to be examined is SELinux settings. What are yours?
Upgrading my system isn't needed because the error looks like an error in basic scripts that are called after office installation. That's not related to minor or major kernel versions. What's I don't have is SELinux settings. Is the office installed with root access or with user rights? BTW: Your nitpicking is about my issue handling and not about asking for my system settings. At least, my systemsettings are not important, I need to know what your system is about. What makes you think that my issue handling is not correct? Where is written how the resolution 'worksforme' has to be used? Where is written, that the resolution 'worksforme' can't be used in combination with the keyword 'needmoreinfo'? I'm triyng to keep the number of unresolved issue low and that's a valid way to do.
Nevermind. Problem was SELinux.
Thank you for your help and findings.