On 02/03/2013 09:15 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
01.02.2013 00:17, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson<awilliam(a)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."
Some background:
For the benefit of applications that programmatically spawn an OOo
process to get their work done, OOo and, by inheritance, LO have
traditionally offered an executable named "program/soffice" as part of
their stable interface (together with a helper executable named
"program/unoinfo"). Not breaking such applications has been one reason
why it has never been considered worthwhile to drop neither the
"program" nor the "soffice" conventions "just for
aesthetics."
Also, given OOo/LO's tradition of being installable to arbitrary
locations (which in turn is a direct consequence of its multi-plaform
nature), there's code available in OOo/LO's SDK that can be bundled with
such applications mentioned above to help them to find a OOo/LO
installation, with fallbacks to platform-specific heuristics. For Unix,
that includes searching PATH for a file or symlink named "soffice". Not
breaking that has been one reason why it has never been considered
worthwhile to drop the /usr/bin/soffice symlink "just for aesthetics."
Stephan