04.02.2013 11:38, Kevin Kofler wrote:
David Tardon wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> said:
>>> My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice is a symlink in order to
>>> keep backwards maintainability. Personally I say both packages drop it
>>> because star office is soooo 1999. :)
>> There's more than just soffice:
>> $ rpm -ql libreoffice-core | grep bin/ | xargs ls -ld
>> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 362 Dec 6 18:37 /usr/bin/libreoffice
>> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 32 Dec 6 18:37 /usr/bin/ooffice
>> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 39 Dec 6 18:37 /usr/bin/ooviewdoc
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 11 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/openoffice.org ->
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice ->
>> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 360 Dec 6 18:37 /usr/bin/unopkg
> There is also /usr/bin/oowriter, oocalc, ooimpress, oodraw and oobase
> that belong to other libreoffice-* subpackages.
Ugh. That's just one more reason to not allow the Apache fork to be
May it just use say "aoo" prefix instead of "oo"
aoocalc and so on)?
In any case when it gows in .desktop files, and in GUI will properly
named as "Apache OpenOffice Writer" for end users have no sense how
really named binary or what symlinks it have.