LO4 in repos?

[Basil Chupin]

On 12/02/13 06:18, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 08:13 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>> On 12/02/13 00:02, Avi Greenbury wrote:
>>> Basil Chupin wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/13 20:38, Ric Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 02/11/2013 04:31 AM, Colin Law wrote:
>>>>>> On 11 February 2013 08:42, Basil Chupin <blchupin at iinet.net.au> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/02/13 15:08, Ric Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/08/2013 03:47 PM, Dave Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if/when LibreOffice 4 will be in the
>>>>>>>>> software centre?
>>>>>>>> Yeah, inquiring minds would like to know. Ric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go to the LibreOffice site - http://www.libreoffice.org/download
>>>>>>> - and
>>>>>>> download LO 4.0.0.3. Follow the instructions on how to install
>>>>>>> it. All done
>>>>>>> in a fraction of the time taken to write to this list and
>>>>>>> waiting for an
>>>>>>> answer to your question.
>>>>>> But a waste of time if is to appear in the repo in a week or so 
>>>>>> (as it
>>>>>> apparently is for 13.04) and one would prefer to wait for that.
>>>>> I would much rather install it per the Ubuntu way, if possible. Ric
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't *buntu use deb packages?
>>> I'm not sure what your 'why' was for,
>>
>> Don't understand why you are so unsure why I asked the question.
>>
>> Is there some convoluted way which is used in Ubuntu to install an
>> application like LibreOffice directly available from the LibreOffice 
>> site?
>>
>> Or as me ol' mate Ric would say, "One has to wave a chicken foot while
>> hopping around the room on one leg" before one is able to do what is
>> normally a very simple install of the files downloaded from LO?
>>
>> I just wanted Ric to tell me that.
>
>
> Kinda like my Fedora days ...if you install something from the third 
> party repos, and it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. For me, just 
> enabling a PPA is a walk on the wild side. So, on the LO site, they 
> have a .deb package but it doesn't state explicitly that it is an 
> Ubuntu 12.10 .deb file. Or, Debian Squeeze.
>
> There is always room for Jello, but there could be wide disparity 
> amongst all the possible variations a .deb file can be applied to. I 
> have hit the wrong Red Button before, so I am healthily skittish. Same 
> reason I keep cab-fare in my shoe ...I've been screwed over before. :) 
> Ric

Quite understandable, mon ami. When you have doubts about the way your 
system is able to cope with change - or is able to accept and apply 
change - then one tends to become less adventurous, less daring, less, 
"HA! And what do I care, eh?!" :-D .

As I stated earlier, I have been doing this for well over 12 months. I 
download the 3 rpm files (I use the proppa English - GB), delete the 
currently installed LO files, and do "rpm -Uvh *.rpm" in the 3 
uncompressed folders, and there I am with the latest LO - alpha, beta, 
RC or final - installed and available for use (provided I also altered, 
*if* I had to, the launch parameter in the Menu of apps.).

No dependency issue hassles, nothing. But it seems that you do have such 
dependency hassles - which is a pity :-( .

So, mon ami, stay with the official releases from Canonical, or the 
PPAs, if you "Can't the mustard anymore." 8-) :-D

BC

-- 
Using openSUSE 12.2 x86_64 KDE 4.10.00 & kernel 3.7.6-2 on a system with-
AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor
16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel Corsair "Vengeance" RAM
Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX550Ti 1GB DDR5 GPU