Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Regards, Andrea. snip Thanks kindly for the update! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 02/19/2013 07:50 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: It will be clarified. The concern there started with the assumption that yum install OpenOffice.org would install something else. It doesn't, of course. So the following discussion is largely irrelevant, but again we will be following the FESCo's recommendation here. The other concern being that you cant have both installed at the same time and or when they do they conflict with each other as in John wants and uses libreoffice Mary wants to use openoffice. John configures Gnome to default open every documentation and tool with libreoffice whilst Mary does same but for openoffice. If neither one winds up using/running each other applications and binary's then this does not need to be discussed any further. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Will Andrea be maintainer of the package or someone else in the AOO group? There didn't seem to be much enthusiasm there in packaging themselves... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201302.mbox/%3c5112b95e.3010...@apache.org%3E That was the last message there and there's no wiki page I could find on the oo.org wikis about packaging for F19 and nothing the in oo.orgbugzilla instance on issues.apache.org ... Apologies... right link on that last bit is: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201302.mbox/%3c51143fdf.9040...@apache.org%3E -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:55 AM, James Hogarth wrote: This made me think of the reminder that had to be given to Oracle about the Fedora principles and how friendship is a key one... Apache Openoffice has no connection to Oracle Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Apache Openoffice has no connection to Oracle No it has more of a link with IBM - but I'm not talking about who the corporate sponsor is but rather the principles involved... In the MySQL thread Oracle had to be given a reminder about friendship being an important principle... and here we are in the other divisive thread where another group might do with a reminder... But this is the silliest nitpick from my question which is surrounding the next steps for AOO, how the conflicts will be resolved and how the package is being treated (pick up an orphaned package or a new package) plus who the maintainer(s) will end up being. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM, James Hogarth wrote: But this is the silliest nitpick from my question which is surrounding the next steps for AOO, how the conflicts will be resolved and how the package is being treated (pick up an orphaned package or a new package) plus who the maintainer(s) will end up being. Typically the person proposing the feature would be the maintainer and they would resolve the conflicts by talking it out with the Libreoffice maintainers. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:55:55PM +, James Hogarth wrote: Since this has been approved I'm curious as to the method by which the non-conflict with LO is to be achieved... I don't know the answer to this. Hopefully Andrea is pondering it and working with the libreoffice maintainers if he needs to coordinate any changes with them. He could fill us in if he wants. I was browsing the AOO archives when I came upon Andrea's thread there about AOO in F19... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201301.mbox/ %3C5109384E.60606%40apache.org%3E Going through it Andrea has kept a very level head with respect to wanting to work with Fedora to get the packages built and in but there is a lot of dispute surrounding the oowriter etc situation... nod +1 to Andrea. Please read the full thread for context but as an example: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201302.mbox/ %3ccap-ksojb20qds5ork_nhirj142-kosapioshc5yxcstj6ov...@mail.gmail.com%3E This made me think of the reminder that had to be given to Oracle about the Fedora principles and how friendship is a key one... I don't know that this is an issue that Fedora needs to do anything about. As Fedora has experienced internally many time, contributors to a project can say anything they want as an individual but that doesn't mean the project is heading in that direction. Andrea, as our point of contact has been great and to my knowledge we haven't received anything from Apache Foundation Lawyers about use of trademarks so I don't think that this is something to chide the AOO mailing list about. There's been little discussion of this since the earlier part of the month on either mailing list and and no commits to the LO git or bugzilla bugs I have been able to find about dealing with conflict and bringing this package in... So what's the plan in mind? For the general plan, Andrea will need to weigh in. Fedora Alpha change deadline is: 2013-04-02 so we're creeping up on a milestone where we might have to defer the Feature to F20. This is a leaf package so it might be okay to go in later but it does need 1) documenting in the release notes, so that imposes a deadline so that the release notes can be written and translated. 2) testing that there are no non-trivial/non-obvious problems between the libreoffice and aoo packaging so there is a deadline here. Is the existing orphaned openoffice.org package in Fedora going to have Andrea as a maintainer and then this new code committed? Is this considered to be a completely fresh new package to go through the usual new package guidelines (plus sponsorship for a new packager)? For this specific question -- policy is that packages which are retired/deprecated need to go through re-review to get back into the dirtibution. So it's pretty much equivalent to a fresh new package where the packager would need sponsorship if they aren't already in the packager group. Will Andrea be maintainer of the package or someone else in the AOO group? Andrea will need to speak to this as well. -Toshio pgp1FKQ1Hk5yu.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:55:55PM +, James Hogarth wrote: Since this has been approved I'm curious as to the method by which the non-conflict with LO is to be achieved... We've looked at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EnvironmentModules under FESCo's recommendation. If someone has an example of two packages from Rawhide successfully implementing this, it would be great. I don't know the answer to this. Hopefully Andrea is pondering it and working with the libreoffice maintainers if he needs to coordinate any changes with them. He could fill us in if he wants. We will definitely try and work with the LibreOffice maintainers. But we are not quite there about conflicts yet: you will remember from this thread that the situation is not so clear, and that for example the upstream LibreOffice does not ship the conflicting soffice alias while Stephan Bergmann, who is a well-known and experienced developer, clarified it is still useful in a number of cases and that it will be kept in Fedora. I was browsing the AOO archives when I came upon Andrea's thread there about AOO in F19... Reading the OpenOffice dev list may be a lot of fun! Your (James') recommendation to read the full thread is perfect, but for those who do not have the time to read it all, remember that the new OpenOffice dev list, even though it was born in 2011, is on par with this list in traffic, that it has around 450 subscribers (many of which like to post quite frequently), and that the Apache mailing list interface unfortunately does not allow easy thread linking/navigation, so in general you end up reading messages out of context. By comparison, imagine someone having to pick a few messages from the Cinnamon discussion on this list to summarize it... you would end up with some confusion. Another point worth knowing about the Apache lists in general is that they apply lazy consensus: if there is no opposition to a proposal in 3 days, it's considered accepted. So it can perfectly happen that there is no positive feedback about a proposal, since that is the default. there is a lot of dispute surrounding the oowriter etc situation... It will be clarified. The concern there started with the assumption that yum install OpenOffice.org would install something else. It doesn't, of course. So the following discussion is largely irrelevant, but again we will be following the FESCo's recommendation here. This made me think of the reminder that had to be given to Oracle about the Fedora principles and how friendship is a key one... If there is anything that you (you==James here, sorry for lumping two answers together) feel good to clarify, please do. I surely won't get offended if there is anything more to know. (I understand that Oracle is mentioned just for reference, as clarified later). As Fedora has experienced internally many time, contributors to a project can say anything they want as an individual but that doesn't mean the project is heading in that direction. Same for Apache Openoffice, obviously. There's been little discussion of this since the earlier part of the month on either mailing list [...] So what's the plan in mind? There's a separate thread about configure options which is about the Fedora packaging. I'll post updates there later this week, and I'll probably also take your suggestion to open a wiki page to summarize the ongoing work, since I really don't want to force anyone to read all threads in the OpenOffice dev list to stay up-to-date! Is the existing orphaned openoffice.org package in Fedora going to have Andrea as a maintainer and then this new code committed? Is this considered to be a completely fresh new package to go through the usual new package guidelines (plus sponsorship for a new packager)? For this specific question -- policy is that packages which are retired/deprecated need to go through re-review to get back into the dirtibution. So it's pretty much equivalent to a fresh new package where the packager would need sponsorship if they aren't already in the packager group. We are basing on the old openoffice.org package at the moment, but if policy is really similar then it doesn't make a big difference at this stage. Admittedly, I've very little interested in the political side of packaging at the moment, so it's enough for me to know that, technically and procedurally, the two ways are roughly equivalent. Will Andrea be maintainer of the package or someone else in the AOO group? Andrea will need to speak to this as well. I will be one of the packagers. I expect a couple of other Apache OpenOffice committers to be packagers too. If someone else wants to join or give advice, this is totally welcome: and remember that, despite what you may have heard around, no paperwork is needed to contribute to Apache OpenOffice, just jump in. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
James Hogarth wrote: Right now there's no roadmap for 4.0 - no milestone dates, alpha dates or beta dates... The best that exists for this is a nightly snapshot from trunk covered in caveats about how unstable it's likely to be. The openoffice.org wiki doesn't even mention 3.4 much less future plans for 4.0 on it's features page! http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Features Could you have a chat with Rob Weir to clarify IBM's timeline for the 4.0 package and provide some hard milestone dates rather than the current vague April 2013 ? Annoyingly the AOO thread has split in my email client by I agree the discussion about the IBM Symphony dump ( licensing concerns as out of scope given that won't be packaged and all code will be review for license whilst being merged to AOO however this inject of proprietary code as opposed to the open tested code of 3.4.1 on a tight timeline is I would submit a concern as to the likelihood of bugs and slippage from the current vague date. AOO really seems to have degenerated into IBM's private playground. (No wonder, they're the only ones who benefit from the braindead non-copyleft licensing.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Jef Spaleta wrote: yum info dpkg That dpkg package is there only for tools like debootstrap or alien to work, not as an alternative to RPM. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Only if you think free software is meant only for those who spend all their time crawling the Internet to keep track of every little drama going on in the technology world. If you consider that free software is meant for everybody, irrespective of their technical abilities, then, yes, it creates too much confusion. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpyXoNXblZQX.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: If you consider that free software is meant for everybody, irrespective of their technical abilities, then, yes, it creates too much confusion. There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users especially since there is a default installed already. The real weakness in Fedora is that our package manager GUI has no way for users to figure out which one is more popular or recommended. So if I am trying to checkout which games are available in the repo, I have no way to really differentiate between say nethack, openarena and xonotic without installing and going through all of them one by one or reading the dull often not very insightful descriptions and hoping to make some sense of it. No screenshots, no votes, no reviews, no top lists - nothing a regular user would expect. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO we're not breaking some third app, we might break LO and that's exactly what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there people willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them. It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application. The main point is that you are confusing users and also developers. Why the hell should a random user have to choose from half a dozen seemingly similar programs when the information for making an educated choice is so hard to obtain, if at all it can be obtained? Whether it is editing a document or listening to audio, it is all about using some piece of software to get something done. It is not about spending loads of time to make the choice. As for developers, why would they have to deal with bug reports filed against the wrong component (AOO vs LO)? Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgp2aqAa3l5ic.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-) especially since there is a default installed already. The first time I ran an installer 10 years ago, I remember staring at a screen which gave me 2 options: GNOME and KDE, and the description for both of them were exactly the same except those 2 words. I don't want an user staring at yum or gnome-packagekit or whatever and seeing 2 office suites which appear to be identical except for their names, and wondering what the hell is going on. The real weakness in Fedora is that our package manager GUI has no way for users to figure out which one is more popular or recommended. And how exactly are you going to explain all the nuances of how OpenOffice and LibreOffice are different? Don't forget the little bit about Go-oo. :-) Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpN6rhz25Mi3.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application. The main point is that you are confusing users and also developers. Why the hell should a random user have to choose from half a dozen seemingly similar programs when the information for making an educated choice is so hard to obtain, if at all it can be obtained? 1) If were so hard to make an educated choice, the users couldn't do to badly by choosing either one, could they? 2) Just install LibreOffice by default (or make it the only one visible during installation) and be done with it. Whether it is editing a document or listening to audio, it is all about using some piece of software to get something done. It is not about spending loads of time to make the choice. This is one of the cases where the expression it is about used to reference an association in human brain only obscures the argument, so I'm left to guessing what you meant, anyway... If you don't want to spend the time to make a choice, don't. If you don't want uninformed users to need to make a choice, see above. If somebody else wants to spend time packaging, testing and bug fixing Apache OpenOffice, that doesn't hurt you, or most others, in any way I can see. As for developers, why would they have to deal with bug reports filed against the wrong component (AOO vs LO)? If the users can find the bug tracker, they can also probably find the Help/About menu. If anything, this will put more work on the AOO package maintainers. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-) If you want to build a distribution with a single default for everything and nothing else, Fedora is simply not that distribution. That is a lost cause and fighting against Apache Openoffice is not going to win you anything. Given what we have, I think addressing the potential confusion by improving the GUI is the only realistic answer. And how exactly are you going to explain all the nuances of how OpenOffice and LibreOffice are different? Don't forget the little bit about Go-oo. :-) Go-oo is entirely irrelevant to Fedora. I don't see any reason to drag it in. Since Libreoffice will be installed by default, regular users will just use it. No need to explain any nuances. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-) If you want to build a distribution with a single default for everything and nothing else, Fedora is simply not that distribution. That is a lost cause and fighting against Apache Openoffice is not going to win you anything. Given what we have, I think addressing the potential confusion by improving the GUI is the only realistic answer. Ok. sarcasm So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. Now why did *that* happen? It is Fedora, isn't it? /sarcasm Go-oo is entirely irrelevant to Fedora. No, it is not. It is an important part of where LO came from. I don't see any reason to drag it in. Since Libreoffice will be installed by default, regular users will just use it. No need to explain any nuances. I see. So how will you empower users to make an informed decision to choose LO over AOO or the other way around? And it will be the default until someone gets the bright idea of creating an AOO spin, and that idea has already started floating around. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgp5agW1apeJJ.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: Ok. sarcasm So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. Now why did *that* happen? It is Fedora, isn't it? /sarcasm Sarcasm isn't going to resolve the problems. If you have a proposal, let's hear it. Removing all the alternatives isn't an option. Is it? Go-oo is entirely irrelevant to Fedora. No, it is not. It is an important part of where LO came from. Users don't care where LO comes from at all. I see. So how will you empower users to make an informed decision to choose LO over AOO or the other way around? Refer to my first post. And it will be the default until someone gets the bright idea of creating an AOO spin, and that idea has already started floating around. I don't expect this to happen, realistically speaking but regardless of that, spins don't change the default. What we have as default is the single ISO in the fedoraproject.org page Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: sarcasm So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. deadpan On an F18 system yum info smart yum info dpkg /deadpan Please don't confuse the discussion concerning default choices with a discussion as to what is allowable to include for end-users to choose from. Please don't confuse the discussion concerning what we mandate with regard to our internal project workflow concerning the tools we require contributors to use with discussion concerning what we allow to exist for end-users to choose from. Because we do include alternative depsolvers for rpm packages. And we do include alternative package management tools for end-user use. And as much as I really personally have no intention of using AOO, I can't think of a sound policy reason or precedent to exclude its inclusion. The historical symlinks muddy the water to some degree, as does the unfortunate history with the project forking. But there's nothing fundamental here that screams policy red flag. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
sarcasm So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. Now why did *that* happen? It is Fedora, isn't it? /sarcasm Sarcasm isn't going to resolve the problems. But it might highlight the problem with this lets have some more choices madness. If you have a proposal, let's hear it. Removing all the alternatives isn't an option. Is it? You already heard it: don't make it worse than it already is. Users don't care where LO comes from at all. Then how will you empower them to make a choice between LO and AOO? How will you ensure that bugs don't get misfiled? Every now and then I get bugs arising out of forks and downstream patches that get misfiled by confused users. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpUeu24n3QCZ.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: Users don't care where LO comes from at all. Then how will you empower them to make a choice between LO and AOO? We don't. We don't need to, and we don't care to. We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora ecosystem. That's all. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
sarcasm So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. deadpan On an F18 system yum info smart yum info dpkg /deadpan You do know the difference between frowned upon and banned, right? For starters: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/669 If you dig you will atleast one more. Please don't confuse the discussion concerning default choices with a discussion as to what is allowable to include for end-users to choose from. The point was to refute the this is Fedora, so we want more choices argument. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpy3ByJRPSYR.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora ecosystem. That's all. How is packaging AOO a requirement for that? They can compile AOO and work on it just fine. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgphhOGQaudSg.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: Sarcasm isn't going to resolve the problems. But it might highlight the problem with this lets have some more choices madness. There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you used already exist in Fedora. I never advocated for more choices but you are trying to draw a arbitrary line. I don't find that acceptable. I let's hear it. Removing all the alternatives isn't an option. Is it? You already heard it: don't make it worse than it already is. That doesn't solve the existing problem at all. There is no reason why we should have say Epiphany but exclude Apache Openoffice. Every now and then I get bugs arising out of forks and downstream patches that get misfiled by confused users. Better tooling and metadata will mitigate the problem. Nothing will eliminate it entirely. That's just impossible -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote: For starters: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/669 Uhm that ticket is specifically about a feature proposal to include something as a default installed tech. We are not talking about AOO as a default installed package. You are conflating issues. Which is exactly what I politely asked that you avoid. Maybe if I say pretty please. Pretty please, don't mix up discussion about defaults with mere existence. zif and smart and dpkg as installable software are well within line for the repository collection. The mere existence of these as packaged technologies in our software repository is not a problem as user installable payloads. If this were a proposal to make AOO a default installed package for any official spin or install target for any pre-composed media image we provide as a project...I'll be right there with you shaking my fist and pressing the case for LO as the one and true default for situation which requires an office suite to be installed. But we aren't talking about that, so my i'm keeping my ire holstered. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you used already exist in Fedora. So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of Fedora? That doesn't solve the existing problem at all. There is no reason why we should have say Epiphany but exclude Apache Openoffice. Because we moved away from OpenOffice.org towards LibreOffice, and then AOO appeared on the horizon. Epiphany or Firefox do not share such a history. For what it is worth, I would very much like to streamline things there too, which is why I said initially: lets not make it any worse than it already is. (Once upon a time Epiphany had multiple backends, before it adopted WebKit as the only one [1]. So we atleast gave up on some choice there.) Cheers, Debarshi [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg0.html -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpiNYHQ9ABiP.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 20:56 +, Debarshi Ray a écrit : especially since there is a default installed already. The first time I ran an installer 10 years ago, I remember staring at a screen which gave me 2 options: GNOME and KDE, and the description for both of them were exactly the same except those 2 words. I don't want an user staring at yum or gnome-packagekit or whatever and seeing 2 office suites which appear to be identical except for their names, and wondering what the hell is going on. So what can be done to show their difference? Make sure there is a different enough description, different icons, something else ? -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of Fedora? Reductio ad absurdum. We will discuss serious considerations based on actual proposals on a case by case basis. Alternative office suites already exist in Fedora and adding one more is nowhere the same as adding an alternative kernel. That doesn't solve the existing problem at all. There is no reason why we should have say Epiphany but exclude Apache Openoffice. Because we moved away from OpenOffice.org towards LibreOffice, and then AOO appeared on the horizon. Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO wasn't a choice at that point and when it did become available, we didn't rush to package it but now that an upstream developer has volunteered to maintain it, we let him do that. We are not switching defaults. We are not promoting it or advocating for it. Just making it available. Same as say Cinnamon. Nothing in our policy excludes it. and FESCo has accepted the proposal. End of story. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
This thread is over. I'd like to ask everyone to take a few minutes to re-read: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct and get some away time from the discussion and think about things and how to approach discussions more constructively. Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen J Smoogen. Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it. Linus Torvalds Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:07:02 + Debarshi Ray wrote: So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of Fedora? Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones. There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work needed to support two office suites. You know kernel is the base upon everything runs, right? Please, don't make the most basic component that cannot be even switched without a whole lot of work as an example for choices. You just cannot support two kernels in one distribution. It's unsustainable amount of work, many tools/libs would have to have two versions shipped depending on the used kernel... This is totally different from having two *end-user apps*. (Once upon a time Epiphany had multiple backends, before it adopted WebKit as the only one [1]. So we atleast gave up on some choice there.) Yes, because there's a really lot more work need to have two backends (epiphany-webkit/epiphany-gecko) than two frontends (e.g. epiphany, midori) working. Needless to say that the backends usually conflict in runtime, unlike the frontends. And yes, I'm strongly against having AOO in repos *if* it'll conflict in runtime with LO. I'm starting to feel you are advocating the single app approach for everything... That's just nuts, unless you're building a proprietary device you do not want your users to tackle with. It's not just about choice. The choice is already here. You can install AOO from upstream (they even provide RPMs). But that's a road to hell. We package things to make it easier for our users to install software, not to offer them the choice. Everyone capable can ./configure make make install... Is there anyone willing to do the packaging work for AOO? Yes? Than why the hell should we stop him? AOO is *not* LO, will likely be even more different in the future; and it's not some base component like package manager, kernel, pulseaudio... Should we just limit ourselves to having only some default apps for each task and leaving the rest to 3rd party sources (e.g. upstream)? I don't think so. Having to choice might be hard sometimes (yes, I had the very same reaction as you, when I stared at IIRC RH7 anaconda explaining the difference between KDE and GNOME by one having KDE and the other GNOME in the description...), but the choice is already here, we're just making sure that the user can use whatever he chose easily -- within some reasonable limits. Also, people coming to linux from windows are (still?) more likely to know about AOO than LO, but many of them already know about both of them and already made their choice in Win. We want to make it hard to them to keep their SW of choice on linux even if the SW in question is FLOSS? Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Reductio ad absurdum. To me this is as absurd as the others. Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them with LO, but we did not. (I guess, at this point, it is quite clear that I am losing faith in the way Fedora functions.) Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpkXvC7ApCrL.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them with LO, but we did not. Yes because we had some problems with how openoffice.org was being developed which Libreoffice solved and this is the reason Libreoffice remains the default. That has not changed. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones. There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work needed to support two office suites. You know kernel is the base upon everything runs, right? Please, don't make the most basic component that cannot be even switched without a whole lot of work as an example for choices. Why not? We have ConnMan and upstart in the repos already. The way things are going I won't be surprised if someone sincerely proposed it. In fact a feature page was written which turned out to be a hoax. You just cannot support two kernels in one distribution. Such distros do exist. I don't think that the guiding principle should be: here is some FOSS code, lets package it. Cheers, Debarshi -- If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar pgpN__9QeYnD8.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: I don't think that the guiding principle should be: here is some FOSS code, lets package it. Claiming what it shouldn't be is the easy part. Writing up a proposal on what the guiding principles should be and building consensus on it is the harder part. Are you willing to do that? If so, look up https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview and prior discussions on Fedora advisory board list and elsewhere and build on it. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:50:11 + Debarshi Ray wrote: It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application. No, it is not. To stay with pulseaudio -- when you're playing a song, it's not exactly easy to tell if it goes to your headphones through alsa, oss, openal, pulseaudio, or a combination of these. When you encounter a bug in Office suite, it's really easy to tell if you're running Open Office or Libre Office, FWIW every sane DE shows the app name in their app launchers and the names follow LibreOffice Writer template. Whether it is editing a document or listening to audio, it is all about using some piece of software to get something done. It is not about spending loads of time to make the choice. So you're basically telling me that it's better to only have one office suite in repos? How about the lots of time finding where to download the better alternative (better fitting for my needs) I want to use, then spending hours figuring out, how to install it, only to end up with memory exhausted message doing linking? No thanks. I certainly prefer having to choice once and than yum install/update whenever new version of the software or fedora is released, than either being stuck with something I don't like or compiling a whole office suite every other month... Also, I don't *just* want to get something done, I want to do it quickly, effectively and well. That's not the same! There are things for which I use TeX, there are things for which I use LibreOffice Writer, and there are things for which Abiword is all I need. I don't think we should force on our diverse user base LibreOffice only. Some can do their work better in Calligra, some do prefer Apache Open Office. For those who know next to nothing, just want to write a document, there is default. As for developers, why would they have to deal with bug reports filed against the wrong component (AOO vs LO)? Are the people who don't know what app they're using really the target audience of Fedora? It might seem so from our desktop spin, with apps disguised as Files, Internet, ..., but I don't think that's the case. Cheers, Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 02/06/2013 02:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: About the soffice alias, it still breaks parallel installation in F18 (just tried, the desktop integration from OpenOffice conflicts with libreoffice-core). It seems that the upstream LibreOffice packages no longer use the soffice alias (at least, the desktop integration only installs libreoffice3.6), Yeah, looks like http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b1cf810a8e7342ad5d518528fd58266daf6e90ec LibreOffice branding: make desktop integration work (fix2) dropped the /usr/bin/soffice symlink from the upstream LO packages, for reasons that escape me---maybe it was just ignorance or an oversight. while the upstream OpenOffice packages still use soffice. Are Stephan's concerns about legacy applications still valid? The concerns about applications using the interface I described (not sure what you mean with legacy, though) still hold. Stephan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 05/02/2013 James Hogarth wrote: Let's take a look at a similar (although of course not identical) situation [...] the MariaDB packaging review request. There are some critical differences here. Especially, if I understood correctly the discussion we had at FOSDEM, the fact that OpenOffice is not going to be on install media or in the default package selection allows for some flexibility with respect to deadlines. The only existing codebase form which to discuss this and test a *working* office suite packaged by RPM is 3.4.1 ... Right now there's no roadmap for 4.0 What the proposal is meant to ensure is that Fedora 19 users will be able to install OpenOffice 4 from the official Fedora repositories and without experiencing any conflicts with other packages. It seems clear from the current discussion that some preparation work is needed, especially concerning the LibreOffice packaging, so this needs to be addressed before Fedora 19 is released. If it helps to package 3.4.1 as an intermediate step, fine. This will still allow us to clarify issues and fix packaging conflicts. But we will then want to package 4.0 as soon as it is released as stable. I thought that the policy would forbid such upgrades but (again at FOSDEM) I got feedback that this is up to the packagers too. Anyway, if this plan accommodates concerns about packaging pre-release software, I could be OK with it. The openoffice.org wiki doesn't even mention 3.4 much less future plans for 4.0 on it's features page! http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Features OpenOffice has three wikis and a lot of outdated content. Just rely on the link in the proposal. The page you mention won't get updated. Could you have a chat with Rob Weir to clarify IBM's timeline for the 4.0 package and provide some hard milestone dates rather than the current vague April 2013 ? OpenOffice 4 will be released when it's ready. That's it. April 2013 is an estimate to have a timeframe for collateral activities (such as logo design), but the project will use more time if needed and reasonable. I know this doesn't fit well with a time-based distribution release policy, but the project won't release as stable something that has not been tested enough. Some parts, for example the accessibility work, have made much more progress than what we expected; but for some it's still hard to have anything more than a tentative deadline. (As for your suggestion, I needn't check with companies or individuals what their schedule is: I'm up-to-date with the current progress.) I noticed itinstalled to /opt which is an immediate violation of the packaging guidelines What we are looking at is the 3.3.0 spec file (F14). Packaging will be based on that (and perhaps on the LibreOffice spec file), and not on the RPMs available from the OpenOffice site. Actually, I didn't see licenses or copyright notices in the spec file, just a changelog. Could someone clarify the licensing status of spec files? Are they just convenience files that anyone can freely modify? Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 6 February 2013 12:33, Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/06/2013 02:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
About the soffice alias, it still breaks parallel installation in F18
(just tried, the desktop integration from OpenOffice conflicts with
libreoffice-core). It seems that the upstream LibreOffice packages no
longer use the soffice alias (at least, the desktop integration only
installs libreoffice3.6),
Yeah, looks like http://cgit.freedesktop.org/**
libreoffice/core/commit/?id=**b1cf810a8e7342ad5d518528fd5826**6daf6e90echttp://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b1cf810a8e7342ad5d518528fd58266daf6e90ec
LibreOffice branding: make desktop integration work (fix2) dropped the
/usr/bin/soffice symlink from the upstream LO packages, for reasons that
escape me---maybe it was just ignorance or an oversight.
Whether it was dropped upstream or not (you sure on current LO not having
that?) we're talking about Fedora's packaging here and the implication on
the changes of behaviour to Fedora users...
Just checked my system:
[me@system ~]$ which soffice
/usr/bin/soffice
[me@system ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/soffice
libreoffice-core-3.6.3.2-8.fc18.x86_64
That commit date was back in 2010 and this was a fresh F18 install and not
an upgrade as well...
I just grabbed the SRPM for 4.0 from rawhide as well to check and the spec
file includes %{_bindir}/soffice
So there's an expectation of compatibility that exists right now - Stephen
what's your thoughts on this going forwards?
As for the 'true owner' of oowriter and so on - well both AOO and LO can be
considered forks of the original oo.org at this point given their histories
and LO is already present...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
There are some critical differences here. Especially, if I understood correctly the discussion we had at FOSDEM, the fact that OpenOffice is not going to be on install media or in the default package selection allows for some flexibility with respect to deadlines. Except that the proposals you have in place including modifying LO install behaviour to allow for the existence of AOO which *is* on installation media plus in default package selections and that knock on effect should not be dismissed. What the proposal is meant to ensure is that Fedora 19 users will be able to install OpenOffice 4 from the official Fedora repositories and without experiencing any conflicts with other packages. It seems clear from the current discussion that some preparation work is needed, especially concerning the LibreOffice packaging, so this needs to be addressed before Fedora 19 is released. If it helps to package 3.4.1 as an intermediate step, fine. This will still allow us to clarify issues and fix packaging conflicts. But we will then want to package 4.0 as soon as it is released as stable. I thought that the policy would forbid such upgrades but (again at FOSDEM) I got feedback that this is up to the packagers too. Anyway, if this plan accommodates concerns about packaging pre-release software, I could be OK with it. And I don't see a gain to do that work in the F19 branch and have this labelled as a F19 feature... work on it in rawhide after the branch and if all goes well request builds be made for F19 at the appropriate time (as indeed MariaDB builds have been built for F17/18 now that the packages are 'stable' to assist with testing prior to the F19 switch over). OpenOffice has three wikis and a lot of outdated content. Just rely on the link in the proposal. The page you mention won't get updated. Unless this is cleared up I see this as a negative towards having AOO in Fedora. If a user gets this by some means and then searches for information they are going to get a lot of incorrect, misleading and confusing results from what appear to be official sources... OpenOffice 4 will be released when it's ready. That's it. April 2013 is an estimate to have a timeframe for collateral activities (such as logo design), but the project will use more time if needed and reasonable. I know this doesn't fit well with a time-based distribution release policy, but the project won't release as stable something that has not been tested enough. Some parts, for example the accessibility work, have made much more progress than what we expected; but for some it's still hard to have anything more than a tentative deadline. (As for your suggestion, I needn't check with companies or individuals what their schedule is: I'm up-to-date with the current progress.) IBM appear to be the primary drivers at present and are the only ones who can vet/relicense the Symphony code which appears to be a key part of 4.0 which I why I suggest clarification on various pieces of work and expected timelines be made with them - given a lack of info from other public sources. With a timeline that vague and so close to expected F19 release potentially it again leads concern to trying to rush this into F19 rather than taking a more careful approach in rawhide to iron out issues without causing problems to users in the 'stable' release. I noticed itinstalled to /opt which is an immediate violation of the packaging guidelines What we are looking at is the 3.3.0 spec file (F14). Packaging will be based on that (and perhaps on the LibreOffice spec file), and not on the RPMs available from the OpenOffice site. Using the spec back then (august 2010) or the LO spec as a starting point is viable but would need to be validated against current packaging guidelines (for the former) and would still need a lot of work to it in order to resolve the conflicts with LO in either case... If we are assuming we aren't using the existing RPMs at all then there exist zero RPMs currently in rawhide prior to branch... it would seem a very tight timeline for packages that haven't been looked at much in two years... With the changes that would be needed to LO too (and the discussion yet to be had about soffice, oowrite, oocalc and so on) it would seem to be safer to carry out these trials in rawhide first and not consider this as something 'for F19' as it were. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 06/02/2013 David Tardon wrote: On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:36:36AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: As Stephan wrote, soffice is the main problem (and I wonder if unopkg is in the same situation or is not problematic). unopkg is in the same situation, of course. Thanks. I edited the proposal page https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features%2FApacheOpenOfficediff=322422oldid=322205 to reflect feedback from this discussion. I would find it just reasonable that openoffice.org and the oo* launchers are kept free for Apache OpenOffice. ... Apache OpenOffice is the newcomer to the distribution, so IMHO it is your responsibility to resolve any clashes with already present components This is going towards getting political... Let's say that, at the very least, nobody will ever invoke openoffice.org if he wants to run libreoffice, regardless of which software is the newcomer. So at least this source of confusion should go away, again by pure common sense and not even taking trademarks into account. LibreOffice modules could reasonably adopt the lo* convention to reflect the current naming. Sorry, but I do not want having to explain to users (and bug reporters) why running ooffice (oowriter,...) on command line suddenly fails It would be possible to think about a (long-term) transition and start adding lowriter and similar aliases, while keeping the current oowriter alias still linked to LibreOffice for continuity with F18. I surely don't want to break the user experience, but in the long term (after F19) confusing aliases should be reassigned or (probably better) dropped. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:19:25PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is going towards getting political... Let's say that, at the very least, nobody will ever invoke openoffice.org if he wants to run libreoffice, regardless of which software is the newcomer. So at least this source of confusion should go away, again by pure common sense and not even taking trademarks into account. My understanding is that trademarks don't protect functional interfaces, so in the absence of legal advice to the contrary we certainly shouldn't be taking trademarks into account here. If the libreoffice maintainers aren't enthusiastic about removing their existing aliases, it's probably going to have to be resolved as a policy issue via FESCO. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrea Pescetti wrote: nobody will ever invoke openoffice.org if he wants to run libreoffice [...] by pure common sense and not even taking trademarks into account. My understanding is that trademarks don't protect functional interfaces, so in the absence of legal advice to the contrary we certainly shouldn't be taking trademarks into account here. If the libreoffice maintainers aren't enthusiastic about removing their existing aliases, it's probably going to have to be resolved as a policy issue via FESCO. FESCo just approved the feature with the provision that LibreOffice aliases won't change (and that there will be agreement on how to solve conflicts). The aliases discussed involved oowriter, oocalc...; the openoffice.org alias wasn't mentioned but it's probably not worth to investigate it further at the moment; the technical issue is over soffice and unopkg, and this one should be addressed first. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Actually, the feedback I got at FOSDEM was to focus on packaging trunk for the time being. But indeed, the biggest effort is on packaging in a way that it is satisfactory for everybody, and for this first step it doesn't really make a technical difference whether we use 3.4.1, a recent 4.0 milestone or 4.0, since the major infrastructural changes were already done in OpenOffice 3.4.0 and newer versions do not introduce new dependencies (although trunk uses an updated product name, that could help in solving some conflicts). In Fedora, even installing OpenOffice manually (i.e., by downloading RPMs from the OpenOffice website) is problematic since: 1) it won't install cleanly due to the conflicting soffice alias 2) even if you force installation, yum update can wipe out OpenOffice since one of the LibreOffice RPMs obsoletes the OpenOffice RPMs. It is surely possible to do better, and to do so in a way that leaves the user experience for LibreOffice end-users unchanged. This is what I see as a first step. Note that I haven't had time to check with F18 yet, so I welcome feedback on this if someone can test before I do. Let's take a look at a similar (although of course not identical) situation with respect to a package that is very similar to another - indeed will conflict on certain files even - and the process/time that took to get packaged... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150 This the the MariaDB packaging review request. The RPMs already existed upstream so it theoretically should have been a pretty simple cleanup in line with Fedora Pacakaging Guidelines. It took from 9/11/12 to 10/1/13 to get that from the initial big to approved... The only existing codebase form which to discuss this and test a *working* office suite packaged by RPM is 3.4.1 ... Right now there's no roadmap for 4.0 - no milestone dates, alpha dates or beta dates... The best that exists for this is a nightly snapshot from trunk covered in caveats about how unstable it's likely to be. The openoffice.org wiki doesn't even mention 3.4 much less future plans for 4.0 on it's features page! http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Features Could you have a chat with Rob Weir to clarify IBM's timeline for the 4.0 package and provide some hard milestone dates rather than the current vague April 2013 ? Annoyingly the AOO thread has split in my email client by I agree the discussion about the IBM Symphony dump ( licensing concerns as out of scope given that won't be packaged and all code will be review for license whilst being merged to AOO however this inject of proprietary code as opposed to the open tested code of 3.4.1 on a tight timeline is I would submit a concern as to the likelihood of bugs and slippage from the current vague date. Out of curiosity I just downloaded the tarball (of x86_64 RPMs) on the oo.org website to see how they would behave whilst installing to my F18 system... Yum reported no conflicts on install - which surprised me (although I didn't install the desktop integration stuff) - and then I noticed it installed to /opt which is an immediate violation of the packaging guidelines so there's not actually a reasonably clean (like the mariaDB ones were) to start from in the first place... There's substantial risk here to the reputation of Fedora trying to squeeze this untested application into a F19 timeline when it's rushed into the distribution rather than taking a step back and working through the conflict issues (and others involved) and certainly with the 3.4.1 code no gain to Fedora users at all over the existing LibreOffice suite. Realistically this packaging discussion should have been started back last year on the 3.4.1 release or shortly thereafter - perhaps with an apache supported but unofficial yum repository until such time as the RPMs fell inline with Fedora guidelines and then the discussion could have been had well ahead of the feature deadline for a release and definitely more than 3 weeks from branch... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Am Montag, den 04.02.2013, 13:34 +0100 schrieb Michael Stahl: how exactly does LibreOffice depend on OpenOffice, and what do you mean by OpenOffice in this context? As I understood the discussion at Linux Day last year the LibreOffice rebase is not only about changing Licence headers but substantial code of the Apache OpenOffice project as well. So it is Apache Open Office LibreOffice seems to depend on (whereas depend may be bit strong given the combersome and delicate relation between the projects and I would like to withdraw this part of my post). Therefore, if the projects share a substantial code base, I'm wondering about the different direction of development and different feature set, Martin wrote about. And I would like to learn about those in greater detail. in the hope that they will stop wasting everybody's time with the current duplication of efforts and stupid politics. Yes, I would like to see all participants leaving the former conflicts invoked by Oracle politics (and to some extend by Sun as well) behind and build a constructive cooperation as hard as it may be for those who are highly engaged in the projects for years. for more info see: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Re-Basing thanks for the link, very informative for me. Thanks Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 2013-02-04, 19:52 GMT, Andrea Pescetti wrote: It's an outdated article and not much relevant to the current discussion (you see, it says the Symphony repository...). [...] The Symphony code is like everything else in this respect: all Symphony code that OpenOffice will choose to use will sooner or later go to trunk and into a release, receiving the same paranoid attention as the rest and a crystal clear license notice (the Apache 2 License in this case) allowing anybody to use it. And then (and only then) there will be something released from IBM to the public. Until then my comment https://lwn.net/Articles/533402/ stands and the discussion on that webpage is still pretty relevant. Best, Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013-02-04, 19:52 GMT, Andrea Pescetti wrote: It's an outdated article and not much relevant to the current discussion (you see, it says the Symphony repository...). [...] The Symphony code is like everything else in this respect: all Symphony code that OpenOffice will choose to use will sooner or later go to trunk and into a release, receiving the same paranoid attention as the rest and a crystal clear license notice (the Apache 2 License in this case) allowing anybody to use it. And then (and only then) there will be something released from IBM to the public. Until then my comment https://lwn.net/Articles/533402/ stands and the discussion on that webpage is still pretty relevant. Best, Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel At the same time, it's still totally irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:36:36AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Miloslav Trmač wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: $ 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 - libreoffice lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice - /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/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. The feature page only discusses the soffice link; what does the feature propose to do about the other conflicting files in /usr/bin? As Stephan wrote, soffice is the main problem (and I wonder if unopkg is in the same situation or is not problematic). unopkg is in the same situation, of course. I would find it just reasonable that openoffice.org and the oo* launchers are kept free for Apache OpenOffice. Using the aoo* convention for OpenOffice is not common: executables from other Apache projects are not prefixed with an a (i.e., Fedora doesn't have ahttpd, asvn and so on). That is not a technical argument, either. Apache OpenOffice is the newcomer to the distribution, so IMHO it is your responsibility to resolve any clashes with already present components (in this case by renaming the executables or not installing them). It would not be the first case of that in Fedora. LibreOffice modules could reasonably adopt the lo* convention to reflect the current naming. Anyway, this is common sense rather than a source of package conflict, so if there are technical arguments against this we can surely discuss further. Sorry, but I do not want having to explain to users (and bug reporters) why running ooffice (oowriter,...) on command line suddenly fails because the executable does not exist. D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
04.02.2013 11:38, Kevin Kofler wrote: David Tardon wrote: Hi, On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@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 s 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 - libreoffice lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice - /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/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 packaged. May it just use say aoo prefix instead of oo (f.e. aoowriter, 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. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
04.02.2013 10:47, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora. A big -1 to this feature, and in fact I'd urge FESCo to veto that package outright (or if it somehow already made it into Fedora, to get it blocked in Koji and Obsoleted by libreoffice ASAP). Rationale: * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying 2 packages doing essentially the same thing? * OpenOffice is a huge package and a big strain on our build system (Koji); IMHO, having 2 versions of it would be a gigantic waste of resources. * LibreOffice is clearly the community version to be preferred: - All major distros support it. - Red Hat people work on it. - AFAIK, it has more features. Does anyone have or known real table of differences of futures? I think it may be important see there. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
2013/2/4 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora. A big -1 to this feature, and in fact I'd urge FESCo to veto that package outright (or if it somehow already made it into Fedora, to get it blocked in Koji and Obsoleted by libreoffice ASAP). Rationale: * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying 2 packages doing essentially the same thing? * OpenOffice is a huge package and a big strain on our build system (Koji); IMHO, having 2 versions of it would be a gigantic waste of resources. * LibreOffice is clearly the community version to be preferred: - All major distros support it. - Red Hat people work on it. - AFAIK, it has more features. whereas Apache OpenOffice is the fork Oracle created to remove control over the project from the community, after Oracle had refused for months to cooperate with the community (and for those months, LibreOffice had been the only version being developed at all). (I consider it a big mistake on the part of Apache to have accepted that trojan horse donation. They should have pointed Oracle to the existing LibreOffice project instead. I really don't see why OpenOffice.org had to be donated to Apache when basically all the existing non-Oracle developers were involved in LibreOffice instead and when all that was needed was assigning the OpenOffice trademark to them.) PS: I wonder if there's any connection between this feature and the MariaDB feature (or rather, Oracle's negative response to it). Kevin Kofler I completely agree! -- Robert Mayr (robyduck) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 04/02/13 01:37, Peter Boy wrote: By the way: As I learnt on Linux Day last year, LibreOffice still depends on OpenOffice and is in the process to rebase their code to OpenOffice 3.4 (or something alike). So I'm wondering about different set of features. how exactly does LibreOffice depend on OpenOffice, and what do you mean by OpenOffice in this context? LibreOffice has merged in OpenOffice.org code for as long as that was still developed, up to the DEV300_m106 milestone that was current at the time of the death of OpenOffice.org in April 2011. currently LibreOffice is being re-based on the Apache OpenOffice 3.4 release, since Oracle did not grant TDF and the LibreOffice project a different license to the OpenOffice.org code (it seems that favour is not granted to everyone); one of the main goals of this is to be able to offer the LibreOffice code to the main corporate backer of the Apache OpenOffice fork under a license that they find acceptable (MPL), in the hope that they will stop wasting everybody's time with the current duplication of efforts and stupid politics. for more info see: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Re-Basing regrads, michael -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Andrea, all, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@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 s 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 - libreoffice lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice - /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/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. The feature page only discusses the soffice link; what does the feature propose to do about the other conflicting files in /usr/bin? Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Kevin Kofler wrote: * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying 2 packages doing essentially the same thing? They are indeed two productivity suites, but they are evolving in different directions. There's a Features link in the proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice that lists unique features of OpenOffice 4.0, including the new user interface (sidebar), the new accessibility support (a key factor for adoption by institutions), interoperability enhancements and performance improvements. Again, the proposal is not saying or implying in any way which of the two is better, and this might vary by user, or even by single task. * OpenOffice is a huge package and a big strain on our build system (Koji); IMHO, having 2 versions of it would be a gigantic waste of resources. This might be a legitimate technical concern. Honestly I didn't think that OpenOffice could be too big for Fedora, but I didn't see any limitations in the Fedora guidelines. * [...] Apache OpenOffice is the fork Oracle created to remove control over the project from the community These are opinions and belong to the past anyway. Again, this is not an educational thread about Apache OpenOffice; but a quick look at the current OpenOffice website http://www.openoffice.org/, blog http://blogs.apache.org/OOo/ and mailing lists http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html is enough to understand that OpenOffice is an actively developed product managed by an active community (and also that the community is open, welcoming and very collaborative with other projects, even though these factors may count less in the current discussion). PS: I wonder if there's any connection between this feature and the MariaDB feature (or rather, Oracle's negative response to it). No connection at all. But anybody who can even think of this possibility should really get some up-to-date information about OpenOffice: the Apache graduation process isn't easy, and there is a huge difference between the project that graduated as an Apache Top-Level Project in October 2012 and the project that started incubation at Apache in June 2011. Is it totally unconceivable that Oracle or the MariaDB feature can influence the OpenOffice project as it is today: actually, I wasn't even aware of the MariaDB discussions on this list when I posted the OpenOffice proposal. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
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 Williamsonawill...@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 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:35:43 +0100 Kevin Kofler wrote: PPS: Oh, and this: 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. is just not acceptable. Alternatives is the wrong solution for this (in fact, I'd argue it's always the wrong solution), because it is systemwide. Why can't you just rename or delete /usr/bin/soffice? +1 from me as well. Having alternatives for this is just bad. Either you're saying you're packaging something different -- then alternatives is out of question -- or you're packaging something that is 1:1 interchangeable, but than I don't see a reason to actually ship both. I disagree with your previous mail though (even though I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning against - i.e. waste of resources *is* a strong argument). While AOO and LO started from the same point, they're not doing the same *and* in the future you can expect further divergence. Fedora has always been the one to bring new things first, we should do so, IMHO, in this case as well. Also, going by your reasoning there would be no point in having Calligra either... Furthermore, technically LO is the fork ;-) I don't think Oracle has anything to do with it any more, they just got rid of unwanted spoils of war. Although, I might be wrong. Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 04/02/13 13:59, Martin Sourada wrote: Also, going by your reasoning there would be no point in having Calligra either... Furthermore, technically LO is the fork ;-) technically, both Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice are forks, since neither of them: a) are under the OpenOffice.org governance scheme b) are developed under the processes that OpenOffice.org used c) require a copyright assignment to Sun/Oracle to contribute d) license the code under LGPLv3 as OpenOffice.org always was [this is technically still true for LibreOffice but will change] e) are developed by the Sun/Oracle staff that have always done the majority of the programming on OpenOffice.org in its time f) run on the infrastructure in Sun/Oracle's Hamburg lab -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 4 February 2013 12:39, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying 2 packages doing essentially the same thing? They are indeed two productivity suites, but they are evolving in different directions. There's a Features link in the proposal https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOfficehttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice that lists unique features of OpenOffice 4.0, including the new user interface (sidebar), the new accessibility support (a key factor for adoption by institutions), interoperability enhancements and performance improvements. Again, the proposal is not saying or implying in any way which of the two is better, and this might vary by user, or even by single task. When this hit the fedora-devel mailing list it actually spurred me to look at the AOO mailing list and compare features between OO.org/AOO and LO... The first problem here is that the rough target for release as it has been named is in April... the branch from rawhide is currently estimated to be end of February - AOO isn't even packaged and in rawhide yet - forget the main release - and for such a large package with the issues pointed out about conflicting names in soffice, oocalc, oowriter and so on (which has a knock on effect on LO packaging) is up for question - assuming AOO gets packaged at all. We all know how releases can get delayed as well and as this is the first *major* release of AOO with the IBM Symphony code being merged in (with the new look and so on) it would seem logical to have a higher chance of delay or have a higher level of bugs or kinks to be worked out due to the Symphony merge ongoing rather than the older (but stable) oo.org code/UI. So it would seem advisable to take the 4.0 release out of scope and focus on whether 3.4.1 (current) can be packaged given the issues already raised and then look at 4.0 as and when AOO complete their work. I followed the links from your fedora proposal page to look at features... The release planning link for 4.0 has no details as to when a beta might be available and everything is 'in progress' or 'proposed' with not much detail and fairly vague descriptions. The 'code' link is to the branches directory of the openoffice code - but it's not clear what you intend to build/package/release from that which is perhaps not that surprising given that 4.0 doesn't even exist yet in alpha much less beta state. The 'document fidelity' and 'sidebar' links are for proposals/work for 4.0 and given the high likelihood of not making F19 (even the proposal page acknowledges this and suggests falling back to the stable 3.4.1 code) I submit should not be used in evaluating this proposal at this time... the 4.0 page doesn't even have any test details, and the release notes are very empty: Now taking the assumption of AOO 3.4 (which I b -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Apologies for the accidental send before... On 4 February 2013 12:39, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying 2 packages doing essentially the same thing? They are indeed two productivity suites, but they are evolving in different directions. There's a Features link in the proposal https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOfficehttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice that lists unique features of OpenOffice 4.0, including the new user interface (sidebar), the new accessibility support (a key factor for adoption by institutions), interoperability enhancements and performance improvements. Again, the proposal is not saying or implying in any way which of the two is better, and this might vary by user, or even by single task. When this hit the fedora-devel mailing list it actually spurred me to look at the AOO mailing list and compare features between OO.org/AOO and LO... The first problem here is that the rough target for release as it has been named is in April... the branch from rawhide is currently estimated to be end of February - AOO isn't even packaged and in rawhide yet - forget the main release - and for such a large package with the issues pointed out about conflicting names in soffice, oocalc, oowriter and so on (which has a knock on effect on LO packaging) is up for question - assuming AOO gets packaged at all. We all know how releases can get delayed as well and as this is the first *major* release of AOO with the IBM Symphony code being merged in (with the new look and so on) it would seem logical to have a higher chance of delay or have a higher level of bugs or kinks to be worked out due to the Symphony merge ongoing rather than the older (but stable) oo.org code/UI. So it would seem advisable to take the 4.0 release out of scope and focus on whether 3.4.1 (current) can be packaged given the issues already raised and then look at 4.0 as and when AOO complete their work. I followed the links from your fedora proposal page to look at features... The release planning link for 4.0 has no details as to when a beta might be available and everything is 'in progress' or 'proposed' with not much detail and fairly vague descriptions. The 'code' link is to the branches directory of the openoffice code - but it's not clear what you intend to build/package/release from that which is perhaps not that surprising given that 4.0 doesn't even exist yet in alpha much less beta state. The 'document fidelity' and 'sidebar' links are for proposals/work for 4.0 and given the high likelihood of not making F19 (even the proposal page acknowledges this and suggests falling back to the stable 3.4.1 code) I submit should not be used in evaluating this proposal at this time... the 4.0 page doesn't even have any test details, and the release notes are very empty: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes Now taking the assumption of AOO 3.4 (which I believe is sane) what does this bring over LO? Reading the release notes of that release it looks like everything is in either the current stable LO or the LO 4.0 release which is just about to happen well ahead of a rawhide branch... Might I suggest focusing on packaging 3.4.1 for rawhide and dealing with the issues surrounding conflicts and if that gies well consider the 4.0 release (or whatever lines up then) for F20? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 30/01/13 05:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Given that OpenOffice and LibreOffice share a common history (and not that far back), are there going to be any efforts made to allow them to be parallel-installable on the system, or will they be fully-fledged Conflicts: packages? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEJHpoACgkQeiVVYja6o6NKTwCdHQNiLQ2/0hvnPEool39c/EHG QYsAoKcrEJFBrYnh6rhUpFJZ/1B70OyL =/hEX -END PGP SIGNATURE- My issue with Apache OpenOffice can be seen on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/ Here is an extract: -- Beginning quote The Apache Software Foundation releases code under the Apache license; they are, indeed, rather firm on that point. The Symphony repository, though, as checked out from svn.apache.org, contains nearly 3,600 files with the following text: * Licensed Materials - Property of IBM. * (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 2003, 2011. All Rights Reserved. That, of course, is an entirely non-free license header. Interestingly, over 2,000 of those files /also/ have headers indicating that they are distributable under the GNU Lesser General Public License (version 3). These files, in other words, contain conflicting license information but neither case (proprietary or LGPLv3) is consistent with the Apache license. So it would not be entirely surprising to see a bit of confusion over what IBM has really donated. The conflicting licenses are almost certainly an artifact of how Symphony was developed. IBM purchased the right to take the code proprietary from Sun; when IBM's code was added to existing, LGPLv3-licensed files, the new headers were added without removing the old. Since this code has all been donated to the Foundation, clearing up the confusion should just be a matter of putting in new license headers. But that has not yet happened. -- End quote Licensing is the problem. I think it is too early to add Apache OpenOffice as feature in Fedora repository due to this ambiguity and legal matter. Luya -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: My issue with Apache OpenOffice can be seen on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/ [...] The Apache Software Foundation releases code under the Apache license; they are, indeed, rather firm on that point. The Symphony repository, though [...] It's an outdated article and not much relevant to the current discussion (you see, it says the Symphony repository...). But I'm very happy to address the parts that can be relevant to this discussion, leaving politics aside. See below. Licensing is the problem. I think it is too early to add Apache OpenOffice as feature in Fedora repository due to this ambiguity and legal matter. The Apache Foundation is absolutely paranoid on license clarity in the software it releases. The trunk of Apache OpenOffice is subject to periodic, full, automated, scans that ensure that all files are properly licensed. Apache calls them RAT Scans, see http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Rat_Scan It is part of the Apache OpenOffice mission to make sure that everybody, including of course other software projects, can confidently use the code it releases. The license check is one of the mandatory steps in approving a release. So I'm positive that Apache OpenOffice receives at least the same level of scrutiny on licenses as any other software included in Fedora. It is important to understand (and this is a common misunderstanding, so thank you for raising it) that this applies to the OpenOffice trunk and to releases. The OpenOffice SVN repository contains a lot of other stuff, including two (yes, two) websites, development branches, and materials the project inherited, like the Symphony code. They are hosted for convenience, but they are not subject to scans and may not have up-to-date licensing information. Whatever is packaged for Fedora won't, of course, be taken from the convenience directories. The Symphony code is like everything else in this respect: all Symphony code that OpenOffice will choose to use will sooner or later go to trunk and into a release, receiving the same paranoid attention as the rest and a crystal clear license notice (the Apache 2 License in this case) allowing anybody to use it. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:31:11 + James Hogarth wrote: Might I suggest focusing on packaging 3.4.1 for rawhide and dealing with the issues surrounding conflicts and if that gies well consider the 4.0 release (or whatever lines up then) for F20? That's mostly how I understand the proposal. The goal for F19 is to get it in and solve (potential) conflicts. It should probably either drop the mentions of 4.0 or clearly state that 4.0 is going (unless some kind of miracle happens) in F20 and this is just preparation stage -- i.e. getting the latest stable in, working and without conflicts. Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 07:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora. A big -1 to this feature, and in fact I'd urge FESCo to veto that package outright (or if it somehow already made it into Fedora, to get it blocked in Koji and Obsoleted by libreoffice ASAP). Kevin, could you *please* stop essentially sending the same mail seven times? I mean, I know I'm guilty of over-posting at times, but this is just ludicrous. I think by the fourth mail in this little set you just spammed, everyone was pretty clear where you stood on the *Office question. If you get behind on reading the list, it is not a good idea to just read through one mail at a time and send replies to each one as soon as they spring into your head. Read *all* the posts first, then write one or two mails that include any points you have to add to the discussion that are actually original and haven't been posted by five other people already. And make it just one or two mails, not seven in a row. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Martin Sourada wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:31:11 + James Hogarth wrote: Might I suggest focusing on packaging 3.4.1 for rawhide and dealing with the issues surrounding conflicts and if that gies well consider the 4.0 release (or whatever lines up then) for F20? That's mostly how I understand the proposal. The goal for F19 is to get it in and solve (potential) conflicts. It should probably either drop the mentions of 4.0 or clearly state that 4.0 is going (unless some kind of miracle happens) in F20 and this is just preparation stage -- i.e. getting the latest stable in, working and without conflicts. And what would be the benefit of that way of proceeding to the user? It seems to me that this feature needs to be punted from F19 and reevaluated for F20, after F19 branches. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Martin Sourada wrote: That's mostly how I understand the proposal. The goal for F19 is to get it in and solve (potential) conflicts. It should probably either drop the mentions of 4.0 or clearly state that 4.0 is going Actually, the feedback I got at FOSDEM was to focus on packaging trunk for the time being. But indeed, the biggest effort is on packaging in a way that it is satisfactory for everybody, and for this first step it doesn't really make a technical difference whether we use 3.4.1, a recent 4.0 milestone or 4.0, since the major infrastructural changes were already done in OpenOffice 3.4.0 and newer versions do not introduce new dependencies (although trunk uses an updated product name, that could help in solving some conflicts). In Fedora, even installing OpenOffice manually (i.e., by downloading RPMs from the OpenOffice website) is problematic since: 1) it won't install cleanly due to the conflicting soffice alias 2) even if you force installation, yum update can wipe out OpenOffice since one of the LibreOffice RPMs obsoletes the OpenOffice RPMs. It is surely possible to do better, and to do so in a way that leaves the user experience for LibreOffice end-users unchanged. This is what I see as a first step. Note that I haven't had time to check with F18 yet, so I welcome feedback on this if someone can test before I do. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
01.02.2013 00:17, drago01 wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@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. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
01.02.2013 17:38, Matej Cepl wrote: On 2013-01-31, 22:07 GMT, Chris Adams wrote: I'm not saying having both is a bad thing, but I would like to think that there's some thought given to does Fedora gain from having both, since there is a cost involved. We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to stop somebody from packaging whatever they want (if it satisfies Fedora packaging policy). Unfortunately? Isn't it is freedom really? Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi Martin, Am Donnerstag, den 31.01.2013, 13:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Sourada: Also, since Apache took over OpenOffice.org and put it out of incubation, it seems the development has been progressing rather well and in a different direction than LibreOffice. While both started from the same point, they're going to be different office suites with different feature sets, different UIs, different devs, etc. I hope it's not to far OT: Could you give a link about the (future) differences between OO and LO (besides the Symphony donation / Symphony UI), especially the different feature set? I tried Google hard but couldn't find distinctive information. By the way: As I learnt on Linux Day last year, LibreOffice still depends on OpenOffice and is in the process to rebase their code to OpenOffice 3.4 (or something alike). So I'm wondering about different set of features. Thanks Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
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 awill...@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? -Toshio pgp0b3m5XWHyJ.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 3 February 2013 19:04, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: 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? 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 s 1999. :) -- Stephen J Smoogen. Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it. Linus Torvalds Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@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 awill...@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? -Toshio -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 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. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@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 s 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 - libreoffice lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice - /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/soffice -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 360 Dec 6 18:37 /usr/bin/unopkg I expect that AOO would want oofice, ooviewdoc, and openoffice.org. I don't know what unopkg is. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Kevin Fenzi wrote: Because the current mysql maintainers are keeping it around for f19 as an option and others have expressed interest in taking over maintaining it. Do we really have to do this? Having 2 conflicting packages which are drop- in replacements of each other in the repository is just useless! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Martin Sourada wrote: and supposedly AOO is rather popular, though I don't have any hard numbers, just a hearsay Apache OpenOffice is popular because some people missed the LibreOffice rename and don't realize they're actually using an inferior fork when they download OpenOffice. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi, On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@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 s 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 - libreoffice lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice - /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/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. I expect that AOO would want oofice, ooviewdoc, and openoffice.org. I don't know what unopkg is. unopkg is a standalone tool for managing extensions. It can be used from command line (e.g., unopkg list --bundled) or as GUI (unopkg gui). D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Matej Cepl wrote: We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to stop somebody from packaging whatever they want (if it satisfies Fedora packaging policy). FESCo can explicitly veto a package or category of packages, see kernel modules. Why would it not be possible to ban forks of LibreOffice by FESCo decision? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora. A big -1 to this feature, and in fact I'd urge FESCo to veto that package outright (or if it somehow already made it into Fedora, to get it blocked in Koji and Obsoleted by libreoffice ASAP). Rationale: * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying 2 packages doing essentially the same thing? * OpenOffice is a huge package and a big strain on our build system (Koji); IMHO, having 2 versions of it would be a gigantic waste of resources. * LibreOffice is clearly the community version to be preferred: - All major distros support it. - Red Hat people work on it. - AFAIK, it has more features. whereas Apache OpenOffice is the fork Oracle created to remove control over the project from the community, after Oracle had refused for months to cooperate with the community (and for those months, LibreOffice had been the only version being developed at all). (I consider it a big mistake on the part of Apache to have accepted that trojan horse donation. They should have pointed Oracle to the existing LibreOffice project instead. I really don't see why OpenOffice.org had to be donated to Apache when basically all the existing non-Oracle developers were involved in LibreOffice instead and when all that was needed was assigning the OpenOffice trademark to them.) PS: I wonder if there's any connection between this feature and the MariaDB feature (or rather, Oracle's negative response to it). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
David Tardon wrote: Hi, On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@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 s 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 - libreoffice lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 38 Jan 9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice - /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/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 packaged. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
PPS: Oh, and this: 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. is just not acceptable. Alternatives is the wrong solution for this (in fact, I'd argue it's always the wrong solution), because it is systemwide. Why can't you just rename or delete /usr/bin/soffice? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
2013/2/1 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many people that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go and have AOO installed by default, but available in repos in a state that does not conflict with LO (and other office suites *in official repos*) ;-) Think about sysadmins, multi-user systems, ... Seeing a bug report saying My LO Writer segfaults with this error while AOO is installed isn't exactly helpful, but not having AOO isn't a solution. Hence I say OK to adding AOO, as long as it wont conflict with LO both as package and in runtime. Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO we're not breaking some third app, we might break LO and that's exactly what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there people willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them. Martin +1 Martin, that's the point. LibreOffice is working quite well and must (!) therefore remain the default Office Suite, as new users want to have a Suite which is working on Fedora, and actually we know that LibreOffice is working very well. Perhaps in the future we can say the same for OO, but not now, we don't know it yet. If someone wants to provide the OO packages ok, but as an alternative on the repo. And for those who want to install it, it shouldn't break anything on Fedora, even if the user wants to install both Suites, IMHO. I hope you understand my point of view. -- Robert Mayr (robyduck) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote: 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many people that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go and have AOO installed by default, but available in repos in a state that does not conflict with LO (and other office suites *in official repos*) ;-) Think about sysadmins, multi-user systems, ... Seeing a bug report saying My LO Writer segfaults with this error while AOO is installed isn't exactly helpful, but not having AOO isn't a solution. Hence I say OK to adding AOO, as long as it wont conflict with LO both as package and in runtime. Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO we're not breaking some third app, we might break LO and that's exactly what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there people willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them. +1 Martin, that's the point. No that's completely not the point: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/177803.html Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:38:19 +0100 Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote: 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many people that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go and have AOO installed by default, but available in repos in a state that does not conflict with LO (and other office suites *in official repos*) ;-) Think about sysadmins, multi-user systems, ... Seeing a bug report saying My LO Writer segfaults with this error while AOO is installed isn't exactly helpful, but not having AOO isn't a solution. Hence I say OK to adding AOO, as long as it wont conflict with LO both as package and in runtime. Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO we're not breaking some third app, we might break LO and that's exactly what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there people willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them. +1 Martin, that's the point. No that's completely not the point: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/177803.html Have you actually read what I wrote and what I was reacting to? Or have I written it so bad to make it seem in conflict with what you linked? Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:41 +0100, Martin Sourada wrote: On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:38:19 +0100 Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote: 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many people that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go and have AOO installed by default, but available in repos in a state that does not conflict with LO (and other office suites *in official repos*) ;-) Think about sysadmins, multi-user systems, ... Seeing a bug report saying My LO Writer segfaults with this error while AOO is installed isn't exactly helpful, but not having AOO isn't a solution. Hence I say OK to adding AOO, as long as it wont conflict with LO both as package and in runtime. Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO we're not breaking some third app, we might break LO and that's exactly what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there people willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them. +1 Martin, that's the point. No that's completely not the point: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/177803.html Have you actually read what I wrote and what I was reacting to? Or have I written it so bad to make it seem in conflict with what you linked? I was arguing that you are trying to make a point that is not even on the table, so there is no point discussing over it. Since we all agree, let's move on :) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 2013-01-31, 22:07 GMT, Chris Adams wrote: I'm not saying having both is a bad thing, but I would like to think that there's some thought given to does Fedora gain from having both, since there is a cost involved. We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to stop somebody from packaging whatever they want (if it satisfies Fedora packaging policy). Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
What about dependency conflicts? Which one will determine the version of the dependencies? I think it will have to be the current existing OO right? So the new one, if added, must build and run with any shared dependency at the original one levels. Makes sense? --Fernando - Original Message - From: Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 8:38:59 AM Subject: Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice On 2013-01-31, 22:07 GMT, Chris Adams wrote: I'm not saying having both is a bad thing, but I would like to think that there's some thought given to does Fedora gain from having both, since there is a cost involved. We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to stop somebody from packaging whatever they want (if it satisfies Fedora packaging policy). Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 30/01/2013 Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti Thank you everybody for your feedback so far. It has now been incorporated in the wiki page: - Tentative release date for OpenOffice 4 is indeed April 2013 not 2012 - Changed leading suite to extremely popular suite; the original wording had been taken from the OpenOffice website, but I agree that extremely popular is enough in this context - Addressed the ooo-build historical remark If somebody is attending FOSDEM in Brussels this weekend and can help with technical suggestions on packaging/integration, please let me know (or just visit the OpenOffice devroom on Saturday or the OpenOffice stand on Saturday/Sunday). Best regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 01/31/2013 04:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: If somebody is attending FOSDEM in Brussels this weekend and can help with technical suggestions on packaging/integration, please let me know (or just visit the OpenOffice devroom on Saturday or the OpenOffice stand on Saturday/Sunday). I am sure there would be atleast some Fedora folks in FOSDEM who can help you with packaging but if you do have any specs, posting them in a public place asap would help get the process rolling. Quick and dirty would work fine to get started. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Thursday 31 of January 2013 10:00:13 Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/01/2013 Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti Thank you everybody for your feedback so far. It has now been incorporated in the wiki page: - Tentative release date for OpenOffice 4 is indeed April 2013 not 2012 - Changed leading suite to extremely popular suite; the original wording had been taken from the OpenOffice website, but I agree that extremely popular is enough in this context - Addressed the ooo-build historical remark If somebody is attending FOSDEM in Brussels this weekend and can help with technical suggestions on packaging/integration, please let me know (or just visit the OpenOffice devroom on Saturday or the OpenOffice stand on Saturday/Sunday). Hi Andrea, I'm going to be in Brussels this weekend (hope it's not going to be FROSTDEM as last year;-), in case you would need anything - I'll be glad to help/find help for you. Jaroslav Best regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi all, I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. LibreOffice is under big development, the suite is fresh, updated, full of new features, and, last but not least, is using a copyleft license, while, Apache OpenOffice is licensed under the terms of Apache 2.0, a NOT copyleft license. [1] Those benefits for Fedora are few and insufficient; a modern user interface, or be the first GNU/Linux distribution to include the suite after the name change aren't great benefit and also LibreOffice can be used to interoperate with Windows users. Last but not least, actually, the two suites can't be installed at the same time because of well known dependency problems. [1] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html my two cents. -- Marina Latini Fedora Ambassador: Deneb -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Hi Marina, On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:14:41 +0100 Marina Latini wrote: Hi all, I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Also, since Apache took over OpenOffice.org and put it out of incubation, it seems the development has been progressing rather well and in a different direction than LibreOffice. While both started from the same point, they're going to be different office suites with different feature sets, different UIs, different devs, etc. I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users. With regards, Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 01/30/2013 12:44 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/ApacheOpenOffice = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora. == Detailed description == Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) is the the leading free and open- source office software suite. Donated by Oracle to the Apache Software Foundation in 2011, it is now developed and supported by a thriving community; it graduated from the Apache Incubator in October 2012 and it is now an Apache Top-Level Project. Two new versions, 3.4.0 and 3.4.1, were released in the last 8 months and a major update, 4.0, is in the works and scheduled for April 2012. Versions 3.4.0 and 3.4.1 totalled 35 million downloads so far (not counting mirrors). To be clear, this proposal is about merely adding Apache OpenOffice: it doesn't affect existing office suites included in Fedora and it doesn't require that Apache OpenOffice is made the default office suite in Fedora. What's the end game with this proposal since we already moved away from openoffice to libreoffice which caused enough confusion for our end user base? And from the looks of it libreoffice has better license and more active contributor base... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 01/31/2013 12:28 PM, Martin Sourada wrote: Hi Marina, On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:14:41 +0100 Marina Latini wrote: Hi all, I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Why do you think that? I observer exactly the same confusion with GNU/Linux users Also, since Apache took over OpenOffice.org and put it out of incubation, it seems the development has been progressing rather well and in a different direction than LibreOffice. While both started from the same point, they're going to be different office suites with different feature sets, different UIs, different devs, etc. I thought it went there, to it's Elephants' graveyard to bit rot and have it's inevitable slow and painful death after being affected by the Oracle plague... I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users. Why now? Why was that not done in the past when libreoffice got introduced ( as in shipping both ) to avoid the confusion that will be caused by this? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:43:58 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/31/2013 12:28 PM, Martin Sourada wrote: Hi Marina, On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:14:41 +0100 Marina Latini wrote: Hi all, I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Why do you think that? I observer exactly the same confusion with GNU/Linux users I think GNU/Linux users are generally more knowledgeable about computers in general and unlike in widows where you need to follow the same steps for installing either, most linuxes (is that correct plural?) have only LibreOffice in their repos now, so there is less room for confusion. If it's going to be properly marketed as different office suite for us it won't probably be much different to choosing between LibreOffice and KOffice (or whatever it's called now). I thought it went there, to it's Elephants' graveyard to bit rot and have it's inevitable slow and painful death after being affected by the Oracle plague... Well, that's what I though too, until they took it out and released couple of new versions as well as plans for 4.0 release. I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users. Why now? Why was that not done in the past when libreoffice got introduced ( as in shipping both ) to avoid the confusion that will be caused by this? Well, because LibreOffice continued where OpenOffice.org stopped. Now (actually some time ago), Apache OpenOffice continued in a different direction than LibreOffice, even if from the same starting point. So we are in a different situation than back then. And Apache isn't Oracle, it's in much better hands now. Maritn signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 31 January 2013 13:28, Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com wrote: The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Also, since Apache took over OpenOffice.org and put it out of incubation, it seems the development has been progressing rather well and in a different direction than LibreOffice. While both started from the same point, they're going to be different office suites with different feature sets, different UIs, different devs, etc. Maybe a power user is able to understand the main differences between LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice but, what about newbie users? I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users. We adopted LibreOffice as the other GNU/Linux distributions and now we want reintroduce Apache OpenOffice. This corresponds to admit we made a wrong choice! this way of act is a lack of coherence. As Ambassador I can't see benefits for Fedora but only problems for our users. this proposal is only a point of failure. my 2 cents, regards, Marina With regards, Martin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Marina Latini Fedora Ambassador: Deneb -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 12:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Why now? This might give some background: https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
2013/1/31 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com Hi Marina, On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:14:41 +0100 Marina Latini wrote: Hi all, I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Also, since Apache took over OpenOffice.org and put it out of incubation, it seems the development has been progressing rather well and in a different direction than LibreOffice. While both started from the same point, they're going to be different office suites with different feature sets, different UIs, different devs, etc. I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users. With regards, Martin 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? I think Fedora did the right decision moving towards LibreOffice, we should maintain that. Never change a winning team :) Regards -- Robert Mayr (robyduck) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 31 January 2013 14:13, Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 12:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Why now? This might give some background: https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/ Are you talking about the donation of Symphony's source code? Please, take a look here: https://lwn.net/Articles/532694/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Marina Latini http://www.fsugitalia.org Fedora Ambassador: Deneb http://www.educoo.it -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 2013-01-31, 12:14 GMT, Marina Latini wrote: We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. Nobody stops anybody to package anything which doesn't fail Fedora rules. Of course, I cannot imagine anybody sane actually using AOO, but it doesn't mean we should stop anybody to package it. BTW, why not to use old OOo spec files from times before split? Best, Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On 2013-01-31, 13:06 GMT, Marina Latini wrote: We adopted LibreOffice as the other GNU/Linux distributions and now we want reintroduce Apache OpenOffice. *WE* don't want anything. Somebody wants to package AOO. It seems to me to be silly, but why not. Wish him a luck (and keep away from it as far as possible, if I may say so ;))! Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2013 à 14:20 +0100, Robert Mayr a écrit : 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? I think no one proposed to install both of them by default, so I do not think this will change much. And there is already calligra ( previously koffice ) so confusion would not be a so bigger issue as long as you keep a coherent default installation. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Thursday 31 of January 2013 14:02:44 Martin Sourada wrote: On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:43:58 + Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/31/2013 12:28 PM, Martin Sourada wrote: Hi Marina, On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:14:41 +0100 Marina Latini wrote: Hi all, I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me. We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom of choice. The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be more capable of treating it as freedom of choice instead of confusion. Why do you think that? I observer exactly the same confusion with GNU/Linux users I think GNU/Linux users are generally more knowledgeable about computers in general and unlike in widows where you need to follow the same steps for installing either, most linuxes (is that correct plural?) have only LibreOffice in their repos now, so there is less room for confusion. If it's going to be properly marketed as different office suite for us it won't probably be much different to choosing between LibreOffice and KOffice (or whatever it's called now). I thought it went there, to it's Elephants' graveyard to bit rot and have it's inevitable slow and painful death after being affected by the Oracle plague... Well, that's what I though too, until they took it out and released couple of new versions as well as plans for 4.0 release. I think it's beneficial to provide Fedora users with the choice of installing either, or even both, provided there's enough interest among the devs to make it so. From a user point of view, I think the main manpower for F19 should go into getting it into repos and solving *all* conflicts. They should be parallel installable and should not conflict even at runtime with each other. Especially the runtime conflicts would be really confusing to (some of) our users. Why now? Why was that not done in the past when libreoffice got introduced ( as in shipping both ) to avoid the confusion that will be caused by this? Well, because LibreOffice continued where OpenOffice.org stopped. Now (actually some time ago), Apache OpenOffice continued in a different direction than LibreOffice, even if from the same starting point. So we are in a different situation than back then. And Apache isn't Oracle, it's in much better hands now. And it's the same situation as with MariaDB and MySQL. Fedora is going to prefer MariaDB (FESCo stated it clearly yesterday) - so we should try to make an effort to support MariaDB and not for example force users to use both just to run system. But on the other hand - if there's someone (and both are from upstream), who's going to take a burden of maintainance - why not? It can fail, they will loose interest one day - yes, could happen. And there's possibility that these projects even coming from same roots will diverge and become totally different projects... So +1 ;-) Jaroslav Maritn -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
