OpenOffice2.0 64Bit ready?
vkushnir at i.kiev.ua
Wed Aug 10 22:07:01 GMT 2005
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Bob Willcox wrote:
<snip multiple replies>
>>>> /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libsal.so.3" not found, required by
>>>> /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libsb645fi.so" not found, required by
In a lots of packages /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 is hardcoded as well as
library paths (/usr/lib and so on). Thus they're looking for a wrong (on
> I have not been so fortunate there either. I don't recall which Linux
> version I tried, but whichever it was it wasn't much better. It would
> start up okay but crashed easily. I may try that again, but I really
> would prefer a native FreeBSD version (either 32 or 64 bit, doesn't
> really matter to me).
Just plain OOo from OpenOffice.org works here like a charm (no java but
that's the only defficiency if at all).
Still I tend to agree with you - a native one would be preferable. One way
to make i386 packages installable & usable seems to put ALL of the i386
compatibility stuff into some /compat/freebsd32 and make freebsd32-compat
module look there for a libs (like we do for Linux or SVR4). I WISH I
could do this myself!
More information about the freebsd-amd64