Am Montag, 21. Mai 2012 um 23:18 schrieb Nelson Marques: > 2012/5/21 Juergen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>: > > Am Sonntag, 20. Mai 2012 um 18:21 schrieb Nelson Marques: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823217 > > > > > > Guys, like I said previously, there's only 2 ways to get out of this > > > with RPM and YUM/Zypp (Red Hat/Clones and *SUSE): > > > > > > 1) Insert an Epoch on the rpm spec template: > > > > > > (...) > > > Name: .... > > > Epoch: 2000 > > > Version: > > > Release: .... > > > (...) > > > > > > 2) Rename the packages, ex: > > > - aao-base > > > - aao-ure > > > - aao-writer > > > > > > I suggest aao, because that's the same name used on the source, > > > so it would get somehow uniform around. > > > > > > > > > no, I assume you mean aoo. But again please be careful with such changes, I > > don't see demand for it now. I would prefer to seek the dialog with the > > distros that they change the package names or any other names, registry > > entries that relies to OpenOffice but are currently used by LibreOffice. I > > won't accept that LibreOffice replace OpenOffice without making clear that > > there is a newer version for OOo ad well or better to replace it in general. > > Sorry, you are right, I meant aoo. Please consider that I only > repackaged for my own usage, now I can have both Libre Office and > Apache OpenOffice on the same system without conflicts. I'm not > sharing anything with the public. > >
that's fine and it would be welcome if the project can benefit from your knowledge. Renaming the pa Lahr might be ok but others are changes are potentially not trivial and have more dependencies (e.g. /user/bin/soffice) The only I would like to mention is that we should be careful with such changes. We should ask - what is the benefit/ value of the change - is it worth the effort - what depends on this change - what will potentially break - ... Juergen (excuse potential typos, I am writing from my phone) > > While I can offer myself to help improving your packaging, there's not > really anything else I can do ;) > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > Either way this isn't an issue anymore for me, as from this point on I > > > am forced to rebuild AAO; since there are no real problems with this > > > option, thats my path, since it allows me not to depend on upstream > > > neither on vendor tyranical approach. > > > > > > NM > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/5/20 Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>: > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Dennis; > > > > > > > > > > --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> ha > > > > > scritto: > > > > > ... > > > > > > One enduring solution would be to > > > > > > break with the past and not use the same file names for the > > > > > > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :). > > > > > > > > I had a feeling this was coming! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MzK > > > > > > > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > > > > -- Mark Twain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Nelson Marques > > > // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of > > > bread in the middle... > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Nelson Marques > // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of > bread in the middle... > >
