libreoffice 3.5 - scm extension request

[netnomad]

hi,

as some friends in the forum mentioned, libreoffice could be a good candidate for a scm.
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,12611.msg68672.html#msg68672

every help is welcomed!

[Jason W]

I believe it's default install is into /opt, so if it is already self contained and not hard coded to be in /opt then it would be simple to install into /apps.  I will look more into it tonight.

[Jason W]

The old openoffice did not require a whole lot in terms of deps, but I see that libreoffice needs much of gnome.  May be a deal breaker, but I will look more into it.

The integration of some current apps with dbus and gnome makes for a challenge when trying to build self contained.

[netnomad]

hi jason w,

thank you for your efforts.
in the moment i can do almost everything on the base of a very small core-configuration.
just core plus a 2mb sized mydata.tgz.bfe plus approximately 600mb tcz-packages...
so you can imagine that in such a lean and clean environment a huge office-package
[ and i don't like to choose the smaller alternatives... sometimes i like big sizes ;-) ]
would be great to be kept seperated... and then the option to umount it, just great.

[Jason W]

Actually, portablelinuxapps.com has a libreoffice package, I will run it and see just what deps are needed and use that as a guide.

[netnomad]

sounds good... i'm looking forward to test it extensively for you as an early adopter ;-)

[Jason W]

Libreoffice 3.5 is up, depends only on gtk2.scm as I included the needed openjdk-7-jre.

[netnomad]

hi jason w,

yeah, i tested it a couple of times and it works fine.
i run it on a usbstick installation, so i noticed that
if i don't umount the libreoffice.scm, the next reboot reports a recovery request and a check of the ext3-filesystem...
if i umount all scms, there is no recovery initiated...
is a clean umount needed vor scms?
if i start libreoffice.scm with few additional packages the menu-fonts are pretty tiny...
(f.e. isomaster has the same behavior)
after loading gdk-pixbuf2, better readable fonts are loaded.
would you recommend to load gdk-pixbuf2 in the onboot.lst or do you know a better solution?
is there a way to get scms in the ondemand-menu of the windows-manager f.e. fluxbox?
for the reason that i'm happy to work with very few packages in the onboot.lst, it's not so comfortable to load the scms ondemand over the scm-browser... what do you recommed? f.e. a script with actkbd-shortcuts?

thank you for all your help and providing us libreoffice.

[Jason W]

I am not sure how to address the need for a clean umount of scms, I thought that the shutdown of the system unmounts everything, the same would need to occur and should be occurring with the tcz's.

Oh, and I see that installing gdk-pixbuf2.tcz makes libreoffice switch to the gtk2 interface.  I will see how to address that as it should be that way anyway with gtk2.scm loaded without the need for the tcz version of gdk-pixbuf2.

[Rich]

While it's nice to have an orderly shutdown, I wouldn't have thought it really mattered for tczs since they are read only.
I thought that the journaling only came into play when writing to the file system.

[Jason W]

I don't see why loading gdk-pixbuf2 should have made a difference as all the libs and files are present in the gtk2.scm extension.  I did create the loaders file for gtk2.scm though that did not help, but it should be there anyway.  For now installing gdk-pixbuf2.tcz will be the workaround.

[netnomad]

thank you for your contributions and thoughts.

but one thing no one mentioned...
is there a way to get scms in the ondemand-menu of the windows-manager?
or what's the easiest and fastest way to load a scm ondemand?

thank you for your hints and ideas.

[Jason W]

I have tried several things, and libreoffice uses the gtk2 theme when run as root without gdk-pixbuf2.tcz installed, but not as user.

When I build a package natively into /apps/pkgname all seems to work as expected.   But using a prebuilt binary can run the risk of some things being expected in certain places, like gdk-pixbuf2.  If I had time, I would just build all packages outright into /apps, but I am one person and I don't have the time resources to build every app with deps right now, though most everything works as is and may need a little workaround, like installing gdk-pixbuf2.tcz.

Maybe one day if others are involved in scm package creation, we can build everything from source like with the tcz's and that could eliminate some of these unexpected results.

[vinnie]

Maybe one day if others are involved in scm package creation, we can build everything from source like with the tcz's and that could eliminate some of these unexpected results.

Small OT.
I'd like to know how to do but (apart from a tight time) I think it's out of my ability.
Rather one day I knew how to do it I would not hesitate to make them.

[Jason W]

It is fairly simple with the 'buildscm' script, it exports the variables needed and the build scripts for the packages themselves are include files that will build it and it's dependencies.  The command "buildscm emelfm2-sc.inc /apps/emelfm2" is used to build emelfm2, once the emelfm2 include file named emelfm2-sc.inc is made and gtk2.scm installed, or rather the development tarball in the repo named gtk2-dev.tar.xz is unpacked into /apps.

It just takes a time of course, which I had a bit of in Dec and Jan, but  lately and in the near future not so much, but that's life.  In a few weeks things should lighten up and I will get back into compiling scm's.  Though I do look forward to others building some scm's, I have to admit I have enjoyed sort of having the playground to myself for a while.