[libreoffice-users][windows] Re: Side by side install of LibO and OOo

Hi
Being quite new to LibreOffice, when I had problems with running LO & 
OOo at the same time, in trying to understand the problem, I discovered 
that its not just that LO uses the same file extensions,  is that OOo is 
encoded within LO files  with OOo pathways and file names, riddled would 
be a better word.

If you use a file viewer such as that within Ztree, you can see when 
viewing LO configuration files,  that so much is OOo names and OOo 
pathways. So much so, I cannot think how they would not conflict, just 
look at the LO "registrymodifications.xcu" file (hundred or more OOo's)

What I find strange is that IBM Open Symphony mini suite (based on OOo) 
also uses a soffice.exe and if you run all three you will find that you 
have 3 separate soffice.exe's running.  Symphony on the other hand does 
not conflict in anyway that I can find. So it can be done.

My only way out in the end was to deep remove OOo using Revo-Uninstall 
and just hope that in the future I don't need it !!.

If you want to keep LO as the default, then you need to deep clean both 
LO & OOo, then re-install LO first, because for some reason OOo does not 
overwrite LO.

John B
xp pro sp3
LO 3.3.3.1 & 3.4

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On 22/06/2011 19:45, Twayne wrote:
> In news:itrfh0$4be$1@dough.gmane.org,
> NoOp<glgxg@sbcglobal.net>  typed:
> > On 06/18/2011 02:52 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> > > Hi ..,
> > >
> > > aqualung wrote (18-06-11 06:12)
> > > > It would be nice to have the option of keeping OOo, for
> > > > the odd case when something that works in it is broken
> > > > in LibreOffice, or when you need OOo installed in order
> > > > to provide help to another user who has OOo but not
> > > > LibO.
> > > I think that is a fair idea.
> > >
> > > > The way to do this, I guess, would be to add an option
> > > > in LibO's installation, e.g.:
> > > Thanks for your text. Too me, it looks good, though I am
> > > not interested myself at all, since I use parallel
> > > installation all the time ;-) Could be handy for you too:
> > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel
> > This is the issue that I brought up in December on the LO
> > dev list:
> > <http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4130>
> > [Change executable/sh names]
> > Here we are on 3.4.rc1 and no further down the line.
> > You'll need to expand some of the posts in that thread to
> > see that I
> > actually tested by changing the executables names&  that
> > works. Sample:
> > <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4360>
> >
> > So the issue *still* remains that LO uses OOo .exe names.
> > Does the same
> > in Linux as well:
> > $ ls /opt/libreoffice3.4/program
> > about.png         oosplash.bin  services.rdb  soffice.bin
> > unopkg.bin
> > bootstraprc       python        setuprc       sofficerc
> > versionrc
> > fundamentalrc     redirectrc    shell         spadmin
> > intro.png         sbase         simpress      swriter
> > kdefilepicker     scalc         smath         unoinfo
> > libnpsoplugin.so  sdraw         soffice       unopkg
> >
> > When will LO stand on their own and change these?
> I think you've hit the nail on the head there. OOo and LO are now two
> different "companies" for want of a better word, and I've never heard of any
> coder wanting to use the same names for their code as another program does.
> Swriter etc. being common names was an eye opener I'd never thought of, but
> that same naming convention has been in place for a long time. I would think
> it falls on LO to do a search&  destroy on said application names since
> they're the newest kids on the block. Maybe it needs to be Lwriter or
> something; anything that's unique and unambiguous.
>     There should be NO common files, period, IMO, so that OOo and LO can do
> whatever they need to do. Just as AMI, MS, WP, et al can all live together
> and even be run simultaneiously, so should  OOo and LO.
>     Personally I don't care and I'm not sure how valid having to install both
> is since there are some workarounds that might suffice, but: OTOH, it does
> seem like they should install peacefully, whatever the actual reason is for
> the problems; it just makes sense.
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@global.libreoffice.org
In case of problems unsubscribing, write to postmaster@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted