On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:15:43AM +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
> 01.02.2013 00:17, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson <
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 14:20 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
> I think that's not the point, one of the two suites will be
> and you can't provide both of them on a live image for
> LibreOffice was introduced to our live images and we hit
> do you really think it could be useful having a larger image
> because you want to provide both of the office suites?
> The proposal explicitly says that it doesn't envisage including
> any images or in any default install configurations, simply
adding it as
> an option in the package repositories.
> Which doesn't really need a FESCo approval ... just a package review.
> Meantime there one sentence which optionally require changes in
> too: " The /usr/bin/soffice alias is still a problem since (in the Fedora
> packages) it would conflict between LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice:
> recommended to fix it in the LibreOffice packages too, at least using the
> Alternatives system."
> I think it should be approved first if it really required.
alternatives is the wrong technology for end user facing applications.
Why can't our apache openoffice package rename /usr/bin/soffice?
devel mailing list
Why not LibreOffice? It doesn't make a lot of sense to retain the soffice
binary name for LibreOffice anyway. Besides, I think LibreOffice would be
more amenable to a permanent binary name change than Apache OpenOffice.