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."
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
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."