Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 136911
[ia64] OpenOffice fails to launch
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:10:52 EST
User-Agent: Build Identifier: When I click on any of the OpenOffice.org links on the default menu in Rawhide, OpenOffice.org fails to launch. The following message is in the file ~/.openoffice-install-log: Installation of OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 failed: 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/ooo-1.1:/usr/lib/ooo-1.1/program /usr/lib/ooo-1.1/program/setup -R:/tmp/ooo-wrapper.autoresponse.file.K13037 -v -nogui > ~/.openoffice-install-log 2>&1' Which seems to be caused by the fact that there *is* no 'setup' binary in /usr/lib/ooo-1.1/program - it lives in /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/ooo-1.1/program instead. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Log into GNOME. 2. Click on any OpenOffice.org icon on the panel. 3. Watch it not launch. Actual Results: Nothing. Expected Results: OpenOffice.org should have launched properly. Failing that, some notification that it was not going to launch should have been provided.
Please note that this is IA64-specific. Updating severity (new bugzilla doesn't like me setting the severity in the initial report)
i386 openoffice doesn't work on ia64; it breaks with the path translation. Perhaps we should exclude it.
I assume this would be fixed by an install scripts fix, but OOo _really_ expects to be installed in a specific place and doesn't like not being there. Bill: it should be a simple fix to the launcher script to get it to work, but how do I know where the ia32 root is? Is there some magic environment variable that I can check to figure out what to prepend to the path to the setup program?
Adding blocker for the GNOME-broken-IA64-issues bug.
On ia64, the install prefix is /emul/ia32-linux. *However*, if you run the installer script in a 32-bit shell, things should just work. Of course, doing that is tricky.
Removing this from the blocker list, per notting's request
Bug 137395 has the same problem as well but it was filed under x86_64 arch.
Seeing as rh#137395# is fixed and close, does this work on ia64 as well since that version ?
no response -> assuming its ok on ia64 as the very similiar x86_64 bug is long time closed.