Subject: Re: clean current fails OpenOffice 1.1.1 linux install but binarys
To: None <>
From: George Michaelson <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/01/2004 14:42:46
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:05:01 +0200 Michael Rauch <> wrote:

>On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 09:52:27PM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
>> linux emulated OpenOffice 1.1.1, with java.
>> the setup/install combination coredumps with some issue in glibc.
>Do you have the exact message?
+ ./setup -v -nogui -r:/tmp/./install.27705a
glibc version: 2.2.4
./install: line 139:  2066 Floating point exception(core dumped) ./setup -v -nogui -r:${TMPFILE}
+ echo ' '
+ echo 'Installation Completed'
Installation Completed

>Btw, if it's just
>glibc: 2.2.4 
>that's normal and fine. There's a check at the beginning that the glibc
>version is new enough, and it always prints the found version number as a
>diagnostic message.

ok. its after that.

>There might also be a log file in
>/usr/pkg/OpenOffice.org1.1.1/program/setup.log. Does it contain any
>interesting lines?

no file. :-(

but there is /tmp/sv001.tmp/ which has:

# ls -ltr
total 3302
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel    30632 Mar 31  2003
-rwxrwxr-x  1 root  wheel   779528 Dec  1 15:47
-rwxrwxr-x  1 root  wheel  1797144 Jan 30 21:23
-rw-------  1 root  wheel   737280 May  1 14:37 setup.core
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel       30 May  1 14:37 -> /tmp/sv001.tmp/

>> but, if I copy the /usr/pkg/OpenOffice.org1.1.1/ and /var/db/pkg/openoffice-linux/
>> state into my machine, they run fine.
>> bizarre. any ideas? I think I found some issue with the suse_libc5 package
>> before but my search of email in NetBSD archives wasn't conclusive.
>How current is your -current? Looking at commit messages, there have been
>some problems during the statvfs->statfs transition, the last fix is from
>April 27.

I did kernel at the same time as a full user install:

# uname -a 
NetBSD dhcppc1 2.0E NetBSD 2.0E (GENERIC_LAPTOP) #4: Fri Apr 30 20:12:16 EST 2004  root@dhcppc1:/data/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC_LAPTOP i386

>The suse_libc5 issue was that in the days of version 1.0.3 some people
>claimed they couldn't install the package unless the suse_libc5 package was
>installed as well. I never could reproduce the problem on my computer, nor
>to my knowledge has anyone found the cause for this.

Me neither (thats what I found in the email thread) but I also found problems
when libc5 WAS installed at one point.