On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@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 <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
>         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 dominant
>             and you can't provide both of them on a live image for example.
>             LibreOffice was introduced to our live images and we hit target 1GB,
>             do you really think it could be useful having a larger image just
>             because you want to provide both of the office suites?
>         The proposal explicitly says that it doesn't envisage including OO on
>         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 LibreOffice
> too: " The /usr/bin/soffice alias is still a problem since (in the Fedora
> packages) it would conflict between LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice: it is
> 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.