Regards,
Andrea.
snip
Thanks kindly for the update!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
