Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 17052
cannot install on a filesystem which doesn't supports symbolic links
Last modified: 2003-09-10 13:07:18 UTC
I had made a network install of OOo 1.1 RC. I want to make a workstation-install as a user now. The OpenOffice.org directory to which should be installed is a SAMBA-share. SAMBA-Shares doesn't support symbolic links, but a Windows-System too doesn't support such links, but there's no such problems.
Please be more detailed. To reproduce I need a step by step description.
Hi, following environment here: Linux multiserver-environment (that means, a user have no control, on which server he logs in). The data-directory for this user is a mounted samba-share (smbfs). For example: /home/user1/ is an reserfs, /home/user1/Data is a smbfs, mounted from a central file-server. I've installed OOo 1.1RC with "setup -net" to /usr/local/OOo1.1RC. Then, the user tries to make a workstation install (/usr/local/OOo1.1RC/setup). At the question of the installation-directory I answer: /home/user1/Data/OpenOffice.org Then a message like "cannot install on a filesystem which doesn't supports symbolic links" came up. I don't understand this, because on a windows system you don't have symbolic links anyway. -Andreas.
Sorry, accidently changed agan do P1.
Am I right, the samba share is a windows drive? OOo needs to create symbolic links, that's not possible on vfat partitions. You also can't install OO1 1.1 on mounted vfat drives. Same problem. Or do you have a previously installed OOo 1.1 beta2 on your system? Beta 2 has created a link 'x.lnk' that causes this error misleading error message. The "link-bug" is fixed in 1.1 RC.
Yes, that's correct: the samba-share is a NT4.0 Server (NTFS). But the thing I don't understand is, windows has no symbolic links, but OOo 1.1RC for win32 is workin' well there. Is there a difference in handling the installation-directory at the win32 and unix/linux-version? Maybe thats a hint? -Andreas.
You are trying to install a linux version on a windows share. This won't work. Installing a Win32 version on windows doesn't create symbolic links, windows doesn't know such links.
Thst's right, Windows doesn't know how to deal with symbolic links. But why is it necessary to make sybolic links at the install-directory in the linux-version, when the windows-version can work without symlinks in its install-directory??? For better understanding: I have here a multiserver-environment. A user is logged in onetime on this server, the other time on an other server. To give the user access to his data, these are stored on a NT4-Server. Access to this server is given via a samba-share. Now it is important to make a workstation-install of OOo on this samba-share, because then it is possible that the user stores it OOo-settings and data in a central place.
This 'why' question should be asked at dev-help@installation.openoffice.org. On linux we have symlinks and on windows we don't. This is not a bug.
Not a bug.
May I request that it be reopened. Every time I've tried to install 1.1beta2 and 1.1RC1 over an existing directory, I have gotten that message -- and I have been using Linux for years. The message is erroneous and the refusal makes no sense in Linux. I am forced to name a new directory or it simply will refuse to install. The simple statement that "in linux we have symlinks" indicates an error in the coding when it obviously fails when installing over an existing directory -- in linux.
Please read all comments. On 2003-07-18 I've written in this issue: "Or do you have a previously installed OOo 1.1 beta2 on your system? Beta 2 has created a link 'x.lnk' that causes this misleading error message. The "link-bug" is fixed in 1.1 RC." BTW: It doesn't make sense to install a newer build in the destination of an older build. There may be some incompatibilities between files.
I've running OOo here since build 639, and there were absolutely no problems with having the install-dir on a samba-share. Suddenly with 1.1, this behaviour changes. I don't see the sence in this. Why to change this if it works well for long time? I think, the goal is to support a most widely range of installations. And as I said before: In windows you don't have symlinks, and it works too. Why doesn't it work in Linux at all? BTW, it makes sense to install over an existing installation-dir, because you have all the settings the user ever made there. You surely didn't want to make these settings by hand for a crowd of users.
This isn't the right forum for 'why questions'. Please go to dev-help@installation.openoffice.org for your questions! "BTW, it makes sense to install over an existing installation-dir, because you have all the settings the user ever made there. You surely didn't want to make these settings by hand for a crowd of users." And what if these configfiles have have changed format or style? Your office won't start or run I get a lot of bugs because installation doesn't work. OOo isn't designed to he installed like this. If works, good. If not, not a bug. You only should do this within the same minor build.
.