Building port editors/openoffice-3 just now, it stops, unhelpfully telling one to build --from odk. Figuring out how to do that reveals that it really failed like this: /usr/local/bin/gcp /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3/work/OOO320_m12/solver/320/unxfbsdx.pro/bin/jurt_src.zip ../../unxfbsdx.pro/misc/java_src/jurt_src.zip cd ../../unxfbsdx.pro/misc/java_src && unzip -quo jurt_src.zip unzip: -n, -o and -u are contradictory dmake: Error code 1, while making '../../unxfbsdx.pro/misc/java_src/jurt_src.zip' dmake: '../../unxfbsdx.pro/misc/java_src/jurt_src.zip' removed. This looks as though unzip is unhappy with the combination of flags used, above. Fix: Moving /usr/bin/unzip asside so that the build sees /usr/local/bin/unzip is enough to allow the build to proceed. It's possible that this problem could be re-phrased as a ports bug against ooo, os that unzip doesn't get called with a contradictory set of arguments, but it's probably safer if our internal version just does the right thing. (at least as defined by this example.) How-To-Repeat: Just trying to make in /usr/ports/editors/openoffice-3 works every time, for me.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-bugs->openoffice Over to maintainer(s).
I don't have unzip in /usr/bin on any of the 8.0-STABLE boxens, could it be cruft from an earlier release?
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 05:03:33PM -0500, Howard Goldstein wrote: > I don't have unzip in /usr/bin on any of the 8.0-STABLE boxens, could it > be cruft from an earlier release? I'm running 9-current and I think that it's new with version 9, and based on the libarchive that is the new back-end for the system tar and what-not. Sort of anti-cruft. :-) If the command line args used by the ooo build are meaningful, then I think that this could represent a bug (or misfeature) in the new unzip, rather than in the ooo port. I couldn't say: the system's unzip complaint seemed reasonable on first read of the man pages. Anyway, that's why I filed the PR against bin, rather than ports... We probably need to get the author involved, as a domain expert. (attached as CC addresses.) Cheers, -- Andrew
Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> writes: > If the command line args used by the ooo build are meaningful, > then I think that this could represent a bug (or misfeature) in > the new unzip, rather than in the ooo port. A while ago, I did a review of ports that used unzip(1). Many of them used flag combinations that were completely meaningless (no-op or self-contradicting) or even unsafe. This is a borderline case, and you could make a good case for changing unzip(1) to accept -u and -o together, not least because there is an example that uses -uo in the man page :) But in what way does -uo differ from -o alone? If there is no difference, then using -uo is pointless, although *allowing* it is harmless. If there is, is there also a difference between -uo and -ou? I can't remember what the default behavior (without either -f or -u) is. In any case, neither -f, -u nor -o should not be used with -n. Using -f and -n together results in no files being extracted, -n cancels -u, and -o and -n directly contradict each other. Using -f and -u together is not a good idea either: they agree on updating existing files, but disagree on extracting new ones; which one takes precedence? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
This is just a me too. I am upgrading editors/openoffice-3 to 3.2.0 and been hit by this issue. Let's make up our minds if we are going to make our unzip compatible with unzip from ports (even if its behavior doesn't make logical sense) or if we are going to patch openoffice port(s). But, please, let's do one or the other. -- Andriy Gapon
We should probably allow -uo, but add checks for -f etc. as outlined in my previous followup. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Hello des@ I would like to ask, accepting -uo option might work for us (I think it= might not)? = Do you think upstream patches are needed for OOo? (I guess many small p= atches are required). What do you think? Meanwhile, I will apply patch in PR 142843 if it goes fine. Thanks From: Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> Subject: Re: ports/143949: editors/openoffice-3: system unzip pickiness= unhelpful for OpenOffice build Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:52:12 +0100 > We should probably allow -uo, but add checks for -f etc. as outlined = in > my previous followup. > = > DES > -- = > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-openoffice > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-openoffice-unsubscribe@free= bsd.org" > =
Maho NAKATA <chat95@mac.com> writes: > I would like to ask, accepting -uo option might work for us (I think > it might not)?=20 Sorry, I don't understand the question. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Responsible Changed From-To: openoffice->office Over to new maintainer
State Changed From-To: open->closed OpenOffice-3 is not available anymore.