Welcome to NeoOffice developer notes and announcements
NeoOffice
Developer notes and announcements
 
 

Download or installation problems? Try these steps
Problems after upgrading to NeoOffice 2022? Try these steps


Support
· NeoOffice Support
· NeoWiki


Announcements
· Twitter @NeoOffice


Downloads
· Download NeoOffice


RSS Feeds
· Announcements Only
· All Posts


  
NeoOffice :: View topic - RC2 Installation problem
RC2 Installation problem
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    NeoOffice Forum Index -> OpenOffice.org X11 Testing
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Terry Teague
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:32 am    Post subject: RC2 Installation problem Reply with quote

(more fuzzy green text - but preview at least shows the text normally)

I started testing the OOo v1.0.3RC2 installer today (having taken a long time to actually be able to download it!), and ran into some problems :

PowerBook G4, Mac OS X 10.2.3, various versions of OOo currently installed.

1) The Installer got stuck at the last part of the installation script, executing :

ln -s /usr/local/lib/libdl.dylib ...

In my case, that symlink already exists. Maybe you need "ln -s -f ..."

But I think the real reason for my problem is that I was short on disk space on the root volume, where OOo was being installed, and I believe the system might have been running out of swap space - I got an error when in Terminal I tried to copy a small file to /tmp, and later a screendump failed to happen, until I quit Terminal and TextEdit etc (I didn't have much running). I did not get any other kind of notification of problems from any application/Finder/OOo Installer during this time (except Start OpenOffice.org when I tried after the installation; hence the screendump).

I hit the Cancel button in the OOo Installer, but the Installer didn't go any further. I ended up having to kill the process from Terminal.

2) I did a cursory read of the ReadMe documents - there was one small typo in one of them, and there were a few problems in the other document. Unfortunately I didn't take any notes of this at the time, and I don't have the files handy at the moment. I will try to document the problems tomorrow.

Two areas of confusion I see that come up frequently in the OOo software, documentation and online web pages :

(a) Is this version of OOo a Final Beta, or the real Final?
(b) Is this version of OOo called v1.0.3, or v1.0.1 - previously I have seen the "About OpenOffice.org" menu item show I think either both numbers, or only v1.0.1, while other parts refer to it as v1.0.3. I have been referring to it as v1.0.3 in my documentation.

Once it is agreed what this version is, I can document any discrepancies I find.

Regards, Terry
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Terry,

Technically this is 1.0.3. We imported (well, Ed did most of it) the 1.0.3 changes back in early May.

I believe the final "name" for this will be "OpenOffice.org 1.0 X11 for Mac OS X and Darwin". Ernie P. implied that "Final" means cessation of develoment (which it mostly will be for X11 though), so that's not appropriate for our name.

Dan
fa@ooo
Back to top
OPENSTEP
The One
The One


Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, running short of space on the root volume woulud probably cause a hangup...the VM sucks away an abysmal amount of memory during the install. I'll make a mention of this in the final readme's recommended system configuration requirements (e.g. 300 to install OOo if you've got everything installed, 300 additional megs free on root volume, at least 600 megs free if you don't have X11/XFree86 already installed, etc.)

The command lines for going off and doing the "ln" actually are a little strange. While creating a symbolic link is an incredibly quick operation, for some reason it appears the java System call is just taking forever to return (or something). This causes the installer to hang for a bit, a lot longer then one would expect just to create a symlink. I wasn't sure of how to find a workaround...the only one is to not check the result for failure, which would probably not be good since not having that link would prevent OOo from running properly.

ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
OPENSTEP
The One
The One


Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An update on the symlinking...

The actual command is:

ln -s /usr/local/lib/libdl.dylib "$USER_INSTALL_DIR$$/$program$/$libdl.0.dylib"

that is, it's creating a libdl symlink into the OpenOffice.org1.0.3/program directory, but only if /usr/local/lib/libdl.0.dylib doesn't exist on the system where it's being installed. The mozilla libraries have a libdl.0.dylib dependency from the fink builds, and to ensure compatibility the installer tries to make sure a libdl.0.dylib symlink exists somewhere in the recommended PATH.

ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Terry Teague
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:56 am    Post subject: Follow-up on RC2 installation Reply with quote

OPENSTEP wrote:
Yes, running short of space on the root volume woulud probably cause a hangup...the VM sucks away an abysmal amount of memory during the install. I'll make a mention of this in the final readme's recommended system configuration requirements (e.g. 300 to install OOo if you've got everything installed, 300 additional megs free on root volume, at least 600 megs free if you don't have X11/XFree86 already installed, etc.)

You might also need to factor in space for 2 or 3 copies of the Fonts for the fondu conversion.

In my case, either because the installer hung, or I was truely out of disk space, only a couple of (Asian) fonts were converted, and "spadmin" kept crashing (but "OpenOffice.org" itself was fine) on launch trying to do a OpenTTF() - I guess to build the font list - either it was expecting certain fonts, or the fonts that were converted, were corrupted. After throwing away the previously converted fonts (and making more disk space available), and redoing the conversion, all was well.

I was also a little surprized to see you used a different multi-user patch than the one you and I both worked on. I don't know if the "1.0.3" in "soffice" is hard-coded, or generated by the installation, as per my code that determines the actual version of OOo. Do you patch "soffice" on the fly during installation, or is this a modified version of the standard "soffice" that you are redistributing (is this going to cause any legal problems)? When "Start OpenOffice.org" needs to patch "soffice", it makes a backup copy of the original before patching. It does require that "soffice" has sufficient permissions for a regular user to modify the file (and the backup is put in the user's home directory). I haven't yet tried running the OOo 1.0.3 RC2 as a different user to my normal admin account I installed OOo 1.0.3 RC2 with, to see if there are any problems. Fortunately you have already pre-patched "soffice" for me in OOo 1.0.3 RC2.

I started working on testing the Installer in Mac OS X 10.1.x - so far, so good, but I have to manually install an older version of XFree86 before going further.

(I'm feeling like the Hulk with all this fuzzy green text!)
Regards, Terry
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Terry,

For 10.1, there is a completely different version of XFree86 (due to linkage, OS changes, etc). To save on space (it would add 10s of MB to the installer size) we decided a couple months ago NOT to include both a 10.1 and a 10.2 installer for XFree86. So this is a known issue that will not be worked around, unless we put out a 10.1-only installer.

Dan
Back to top
OPENSTEP
The One
The One


Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The actual issue with 10.1 is linkage, as mentioned, but also a convoluted install process...you need to install the base then an update from the XonX project. It's really bad. I guess now that I'm in line to take over XonX's installer projects, I may be the one to blame Smile

I will include exact instructions for 10.1 installs when I get the final FAQ together (keeps getting put off due to all this f***ing bugs...thanks dudes for keeping me on my toes!)

ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
OPENSTEP
The One
The One


Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:08 am    Post subject: Re: Follow-up on RC2 installation Reply with quote

Just an FYI, I did run out of disk space during one of my install runs, and it definitely did not fail in a nice manner (e.g. did not say "you're out of disk space, have fun trying to logout now"). The Dock apparently also didn't like it...lost my configuration. I put in the system requirements 300 for OOo, 600 MB for external apps, and an extra 1 GB free recommended for swap. Overall, after it's done it occupies around 350-400 with X11 and all else on there, but the machine will definitely need that swap for installation and for running the memory suck OOo.

Terry Teague wrote:
converted, and "spadmin" kept crashing (but "OpenOffice.org" itself was fine) on launch trying to do a OpenTTF() - I


This is because XFree86 4.3.0 doesn't have the magic Dan freetype fixes for double-frees on failing to open fonts, I suspect. These fixes will be in future versions of XFree, and will hopefully eke it into the next Apple X11 to avoid crashing on asian fonts.

Terry Teague wrote:
I was also a little surprized to see you used a different multi-user patch than the one you and I both worked on. I don't know if the "1.0.3" in "soffice" is hard-coded, or generated by the installation, as per my code that determines the actual version of OOo.


Right now, soffice is not patched on the fly. I had moved to consolidating the fixes within the soffice script since I was under the impression that StartOOo required the binary and script to be in the proper form (not the soffice.startup renaming version of the patches like we had before). What should I do differently, if anything? I'll test multi-user accounts to make sure they're working properly.

Terry Teague wrote:
normal admin account I installed OOo 1.0.3 RC2 with, to see if there are any problems. Fortunately you have already pre-patched "soffice" for me in OOo 1.0.3 RC2.


The pathname fix should be in the soffice script, and I believe it should be installed 755 or 777. I'll double check to make sure it's 777.

ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Terry Teague
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 1:40 am    Post subject: RE: XFree86 on Mac OS X 10.1.x Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
For 10.1, there is a completely different version of XFree86 (due to linkage, OS changes, etc). To save on space (it would add 10s of MB to the installer size) we decided a couple months ago NOT to include both a 10.1 and a 10.2 installer for XFree86. So this is a known issue that will not be worked around, unless we put out a 10.1-only installer.

No problem - I was aware of the differences, and have installed/upgraded many versions of X11 server software along the way. I vaguely recall the discussion. I'm fine with a separate installer, or do-it-yourself support. I was just keeping you up to date with what I was noticing Smile

Regards, Terry
Back to top
Terry Teague
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:11 am    Post subject: Re: Follow-up on RC2 installation Reply with quote

OPENSTEP wrote:
Right now, soffice is not patched on the fly. I had moved to consolidating the fixes within the soffice script since I was under the impression that StartOOo required the binary and script to be in the proper form (not the soffice.startup renaming version of the patches like we had before). What should I do differently, if anything? I'll test multi-user accounts to make sure they're working properly.

I modified StartOOo to support your original "soffice.startup" pieces, and that's what I was testing for a few weeks - basically I now accept "soffice*". You don't have to do anything, other than tell me when you make changes like this Smile

I did some quick testing of muilt-user accounts, and it is working as well as it did previously.

OPENSTEP wrote:
Terry Teague wrote:
normal admin account I installed OOo 1.0.3 RC2 with, to see if there are any problems. Fortunately you have already pre-patched "soffice" for me in OOo 1.0.3 RC2.


The pathname fix should be in the soffice script, and I believe it should be installed 755 or 777. I'll double check to make sure it's 777.

It doesn't matter now - since "soffice" is already patched, I don't have to patch it (StartOOo checks for this case).

Basically things are working fine. I haven't reviewed the latest ReadMe yet, and I'm not sure if I mentioned it in the StartOOo documentation, but you/users should be aware that for the very first launch of StartOOo in a multi-user environment for a new user (i.e. no "~/.sversionrc" file), StartOOo must be launched from the OOo install folder; on subsequent launches of StartOOo, it can be located anywhere (uses the "~/.sversionrc" file to locate OOo).

Regards, Terry
Back to top
Max_Barel
Oracle


Joined: May 31, 2003
Posts: 219
Location: French Alps

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:45 am    Post subject: RC2 tarball: abort trap Reply with quote

OPENSTEP wrote:
An update on the symlinking...
The actual command is:

ln -s /usr/local/lib/libdl.dylib "$USER_INSTALL_DIR$$/$program$/$libdl.0.dylib"

that is, it's creating a libdl symlink into the OpenOffice.org1.0.3/program directory, but only if /usr/local/lib/libdl.0.dylib doesn't exist on the system where it's being installed. The mozilla libraries have a libdl.0.dylib dependency from the fink builds, and to ensure compatibility the installer tries to make sure a libdl.0.dylib symlink exists somewhere in the recommended PATH.

I just dowloaded the rc2 tarball yesterday (you know, the bandwith...) and start install.
Beside the a few missing files (readme, license in text and html), I got an error about a dylib because the symlink can't be created.
I now get an abort trap when launching soffice rc2, without any other output on the terminal. As you noticed in an other thread in this forum, I downloaded the two uptaded libraries (libvcl641mxp.dylib sp641mxp.dylib ) from the OOoTesting iDisk. Idem.
I have /usr/local/lib/libdl.dylib which is a symlink to /usr/lib/libdl.0.dylib.
I tried to manualy add a symlink to this lib in the program directory. No way.
So at the moment I'm unable to run the RC2 from the tarball.

OSX 10.2.6
single CPU
Apple X11

?
Max
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
OPENSTEP
The One
The One


Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, F. Yes, asxless told me there may be problems with the RC2 tarball as well. That's really upsetting that you're seeing that abort on startup. Can you open "Console" and see if there are any dyld errors reported there?

I will actually be delaying our "final" tarball for a while. With all of these fairly major problems being reported, I should hold off. Also, Dan sent along to me the AppleScripts from our weeklies to put in them Smile

Note: Private message/e-mail me if you want a login/pass for the ftp server so you don't have to worry about the login brick wall. The bandwidth, of course, is still a problem...man, you would think my ISP would have upgraded the line. I mean it's been three weeks Sad They do let me use it for whatever types of servers I want so I guess it's not all bad.

ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Max_Barel
Oracle


Joined: May 31, 2003
Posts: 219
Location: French Alps

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OPENSTEP wrote:
Ah, F. Yes, asxless told me there may be problems with the RC2 tarball as well. That's really upsetting that you're seeing that abort on startup. Can you open "Console" and see if there are any dyld errors reported there?

Ah! yes, I forgot to check the crashdump.
It looks this is not a dylib issue, but a (missing?) splashscreen one !
Here it is (I paste only the beginning since the crash is from thread 0) :
**********

Date/Time: 2003-06-22 16:43:42 +0200
OS Version: 10.2.6 (Build 6L60)
Host: grogro.local.

Command: soffice.bin
PID: 992

Exception: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (0x0001)
Codes: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE (0x0002) at 0x00000384

Thread 0 Crashed:
#0 0x004c64c4 in ResMgr::GetResource(ResId const &, Resource const *)
#1 0x004c65f4 in ResMgr::GetResourceSkipHeader(ResId const &, ResMgr **)
#2 0x00d42410 in Bitmap::Bitmap(ResId const &)
#3 0x0000cfac in Desktop::OpenStartupScreen(void)
#4 0x00007998 in Desktop::Main(void)
#5 0x00d36f78 in SVMain(void)
#6 0x00eb8960 in main
#7 0x000026b0 in _start
#8 0x000024e0 in start
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    NeoOffice Forum Index -> OpenOffice.org X11 Testing All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Planamesa Inc.
NeoOffice is a registered trademark of Planamesa Inc. and may not be used without permission.
PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.03 Seconds