Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 5:01 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/3/23 08:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos < > jxftw2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is > >>

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 03/07/2023 01:28, Michael Catanzaro wrote: OK, host shared libraries and flatpaked libraries will be loaded at the same time, but I really doubt that's going to be at all significant. Include dozens of bundled libraries here too. Only runtimes can use shared memory. They do consume

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 7/2/23 19:28, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 04:59:39 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: >>> >> Fedora Flatpaks are also a security disaster: they are shipped in OCI >> format instead of OSTree format, but they aren’t signed by anyone. >> I’ve disabled the Fedora remote

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 04:59:39 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Fedora Flatpaks are also a security disaster: they are shipped in OCI format instead of OSTree format, but they aren’t signed by anyone. I’ve disabled the Fedora remote and recommend that others do the same. I didn't

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/3/23 08:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is >> important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some >> optional access to Office

Re: LibreOffice packages

I built it successfully in the side tag by disabling tests. There's a new release; I'll see if that fixes things. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with Proton Mail secure

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:40:39 +0200 Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 01. 06. 23 22:16, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > > I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep > > the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. > > Thanks. > > Could you please prioritize making it

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 01. 06. 23 22:16, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. Thanks. Could you please prioritize making it build? The LibreOffice package fails to build in rawhide for months.

Re: LibreOffice packages

Michael Catanzaro píše v St 07. 06. 2023 v 08:15 -0500: > > Ideally all bundled dependencies should be hooked up to some sort of > automation that notices when there are upstream updates available, > comparable to upstream release monitoring. On Flathub this is done by >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/7/23 15:15, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [1] https://github.com/flathub/flatpak-external-data-checker Oh, thanks, didn't know about that. Will try to make use of it for LibreOffice, "Add metadata for

Re: LibreOffice packages

The main difference is that Fedora - be it rpms, flatpaks from module rpms (current state), flatpaks from whatever - comes with the promise of all the four F's, including freedom from legal issues as outlined in our guidelines. That enables RedHat to make the guarantees which they make for

Re: LibreOffice packages

Ideally all bundled dependencies should be hooked up to some sort of automation that notices when there are upstream updates available, comparable to upstream release monitoring. On Flathub this is done by flathub-external-data-checker [1], but using it is optional and it's not useful if

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 18:07:04 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On the other hand, the libreoffice flatpak bundles ~80 projects: > - gpgme (huh?) This... > - openldap (huh?) and perhaps this are probably because it is possible to sign and encrypt ODF documents using OpenPGP. Some details are

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Wednesday, 07 June 2023 at 08:51, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 6/6/23 18:07, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > In general, I do like having software available as flatpaks, > > especially if it's not available from Fedora repositories. > > However, there's also the question of *trust* - do I trust the

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:51 AM Stephan Bergmann wrote: > > If you are talking about the LibreOffice upstream flatpak on Flathub > (i.e., > ): Yes, that is what I

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/6/23 18:07, Fabio Valentini wrote: In general, I do like having software available as flatpaks, especially if it's not available from Fedora repositories. However, there's also the question of *trust* - do I trust the software source and / or the people / projects providing them? Let's

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:00 PM Christian Schaller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: >> >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? >> -- >> Sincerely, >> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) > > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:50 AM Leon Fauster via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Is the Fedora OCI flatpak approach not about the trust into the chain of > flatpak creation? src -> signed rpm -> flatpak? So, even in an ideal world > where RHEL is immutable and the best workstation

Re: LibreOffice packages

Is the Fedora OCI flatpak approach not about the trust into the chain of flatpak creation? src -> signed rpm -> flatpak? So, even in an ideal world where RHEL is immutable and the best workstation experience is based on flatpaks - RPMs are the building block. This is completly different to the

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 16:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:37:24 PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen > wrote: > > > > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in > > it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? > > Two layers: > > * Runtime

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 04:46:42 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Fedora could, of course ship its own SELinux policy for Flatpak (and I recommend this), but Flatpak will not (and cannot reasonably be expected to) integrate with SELinux natively. Well it would have to be a very permissive

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 04:49:07 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: “several hundred megabits a second on tap at all times” is completely out of the question for the majority of the world’s population. I’m not sure what the median bandwidth in the developing world is, but it is far FAR less

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 16:49 -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/5/23 15:01, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:51 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > > > On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > > > > > > Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 15:01, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:51 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: >> >>> Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create >>> packages for every distribution is not reasonable. >> >> I would never

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 16:35, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 02:09:58 PM -0400, Steve Grubb > wrote: >> Yes. And how does it's security model work? > > The security model is that the application is assumed to be compromised > by malicious input and is trying to do evil things to the host

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 02:09:58 PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: Yes. And how does it's security model work? The security model is that the application is assumed to be compromised by malicious input and is trying to do evil things to the host system, like read your home directory and send

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:37:24 PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? Two layers: * Runtime (base platform, responsibility of runtime maintainers) * Application

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:05:25 PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a specific build of a lower layer. So using the up-thread example, if there's a security update to zlib, the lower layer can rebuild to pick it up, but until the

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 05/06/23 19:51, Roberto Ragusa ha scritto: > On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > >> Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create >> packages for every distribution is not reasonable. > I would never want upstream to do packaging, as experience teaches, > they

Re: LibreOffice packages

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 13:05 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a > > specific build of a lower layer. So using the up-thread example, if > > there's a security update to zlib, the lower layer

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:51 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > > Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create > > packages for every distribution is not reasonable. > > I would never want upstream to do packaging, as experience

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 13:05 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said: > > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is > > it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? > > It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 14:10, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Monday, June 5, 2023 1:37:24 PM EDT Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 13:32, Michael Catanzaro > > > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > > > > > > wrote: > > > > zlib should be added to

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 2:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said: 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a specific build of

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Monday, June 5, 2023 1:37:24 PM EDT Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 13:32, Michael Catanzaro > > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > > > > wrote: > > > zlib should be added to the standard freedesktop.org runtime if it is > > > not > > >

Re: LibreOffice packages

Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said: > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is > it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a specific build of a lower layer. So using the

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create packages for every distribution is not reasonable. I would never want upstream to do packaging, as experience teaches, they would certainly do it wrong. Packaging and integration is

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 13:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: > > zlib should be added to the standard freedesktop.org runtime if it is > > not > > already included. > > zlib is included in both freedesktop-sdk and also GNOME

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: zlib should be added to the standard freedesktop.org runtime if it is not already included. zlib is included in both freedesktop-sdk and also GNOME runtimes, so nobody should need to bundle it. Michael

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 12:13, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 6/5/23 09:35, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >> "easily install from Flathub" brings us closer to Windows where you >> "easily" install software from random places on the Internet and they >> bring their own bundled outdated versions of

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 05/06/23 17:00, Michael J Gruber ha scritto: > I've taken up hyphen and the orphaned hyphen-* packages. They don't appear to > be high maintenance, but co-admins welcome, of course. Similarly, feel free > to admin as co-admin to other hyphen-* in case something needs coordinations. > The

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 09:35, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: "easily install from Flathub" brings us closer to Windows where you "easily" install software from random places on the Internet and they bring their own bundled outdated versions of libraries. Flatpaks have the added downside of not

Re: LibreOffice packages

I've taken up hyphen and the orphaned hyphen-* packages. They don't appear to be high maintenance, but co-admins welcome, of course. Similarly, feel free to admin as co-admin to other hyphen-* in case something needs coordinations. The language packages are basically a "cp" in "%install",

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 3:39 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 05/06/2023 13:54, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I'm not sure what led you to the conclusion that IBM has anything to > > do with this or that "they fired a lot of good engineers". I don't > > see evidence of either being the case. > >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 05/06/2023 13:54, Josh Boyer wrote: I'm not sure what led you to the conclusion that IBM has anything to do with this or that "they fired a lot of good engineers". I don't see evidence of either being the case. Please don't state your own assumptions as facts.

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:43 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > We cannot ship anything from Flathub because > FESCo will not allow it. I don't *like* this FESCo requirement, but I > also don't expect that to change. I haven't studied that ruling, but perhaps the assumption was that said software is

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 08:45:28 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I'm not going to defend callous layoffs during a time when Red Hat is > earning big profits. And I have no clue what our corporate overloads It is a fact of corporate life that if you are a manager and want to be promoted, cutting

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 3:56 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: > > No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with > > F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep > > Fedora Diehards from

Re: LibreOffice packages

> I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the > lights > on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. Don't know how much time I'll be able to contribute, but you can count me in. As Mattia suggested, I think it might be a good idea to set up libreoffice-sig. A.FI.

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 09:09:57AM +0200, Peter Boy wrote: > > Am 03.06.2023 um 02:06 schrieb Sandro : > > What will we ship in Fedora if we were to follow in Red Hat's > > footsteps? LibreOffice Flatpak? That may prove to be the straw > > that broke the camel's back. As I said before, I don't

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Saturday, 03 June 2023 at 14:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [...] > My $0.02: maintaining complex desktop applications as part of the operating > system requires significant effort and produces low value for users when you > can easily install that app from Flathub instead. (It *especially*

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 02/06/23 09:22, Jiri Vanek ha scritto: > Damn thats a long list. > > Indeed. I can help and pick up a couple of packages, but what about the hunspell*, hyphen*, mythes*? I think those will require more work than what a volunteer packager can bring. Yet, I suspect dropping them will blow up

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 9:09 AM Matthew Miller mailto:mat...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: I think this sentiment is getting ahead of things. This thread _is_ that effort. Yes, but. In general, a better approach is to say "we plan on orphaning the packages in $timeframe". ... RH, for

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/2/23 8:49 AM, Terry Bowling wrote: I appreciate and am empathetic to all of those carrying the burden of this and the thousands of other RPM packages.  As a users of Fedora + RPM Fusion + Cinnamon Desktop as my daily laptop driver since 2011, I love Fedora and am a heavy user of

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 9:09 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > I think this sentiment is getting ahead of things. This thread _is_ that effort. Yes, but. In general, a better approach is to say "we plan on orphaning the packages in $timeframe". Even if $timeframe is a week, it shifts the perception to

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 09:56:40 AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: Yes, Fedora is dying. Slow, but imminent. IBM doesn't want to keep it in a good condition, so they fired a lot of good engineers. It's very sad. I have been using it for years. I'm not going to defend callous layoffs

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos wrote: Hello, While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some optional access to Office directly from the image file. Have you considered shipping

Re: LibreOffice packages

Hello, While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some optional access to Office directly from the image file. Have you considered shipping the LibreOffice flatpak via the ISO much like Fedora Silverblue does

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Am 03.06.2023 um 09:56 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > : > > On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: >> No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with F39. >> Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep Fedora >> Diehards from

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 03/06/2023 09:51, Samuel Sieb wrote: Did you read the whole thread?  It's not going anywhere.  People have stepped up to maintain it. LibreOffice is a complex project. It will be very difficult to maintain it. It's not just a trivial Version+Release bump, no. They will need to backport

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep Fedora Diehards from jumping to another popular distribution. Yes, Fedora is dying. Slow, but

Re: LibreOffice packages

> If I understand the announcement correctly, future RHEL will not include > LibreOffice > anymore. That’s the reason, why the maintainers have withdrawn. > > > Instead of Flatpak I would prefer to pick up the software directly from the > project. LO > provides a rpm. Maybe we have to change

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/2/23 19:50, Ralph Bromley wrote: This is a stupid bonehead idea, libreoffice is just too big to reliably run in flatpak. Plus what about java integration, guess the languagetool plugin wont work now and I will have to use its stupud online version where you havwe to pay to add words. Oh

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Am 03.06.2023 um 02:06 schrieb Sandro : > > On 02-06-2023 16:09, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:55:30AM +0200, Sandro wrote: >>> However, it surprises me that for a package, that is part of the >>> deliverables of Fedora releases, no coordination effort was made to >>>

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Am 03.06.2023 um 05:11 schrieb Ralph Bromley : > > Look its not like I have not tried libreoffice as a flat but as of now it > looks out of place, I can't even see the icons even when I use the default > adwaita or breeze themes. > How is this an improvement? > I wanted to leave ubuntu

Re: LibreOffice packages

Look its not like I have not tried libreoffice as a flat but as of now it looks out of place, I can't even see the icons even when I use the default adwaita or breeze themes. How is this an improvement? I wanted to leave ubuntu because of crap like this, where they forced snaps down my throat

Re: LibreOffice packages

This is a stupid bonehead idea, libreoffice is just too big to reliably run in flatpak. Plus what about java integration, guess the languagetool plugin wont work now and I will have to use its stupud online version where you havwe to pay to add words. Oh well, back to debian.

Re: LibreOffice packages

No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep Fedora Diehards from jumping to another popular distribution. Leslie Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:07 p.m., Sandro wrote: On

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 02-06-2023 16:09, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:55:30AM +0200, Sandro wrote: However, it surprises me that for a package, that is part of the deliverables of Fedora releases, no coordination effort was made to transition the package from Red Hat maintenance to Fedora

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 9:40 AM Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 2:28 PM Stephen Smoogen > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 07:20, Matthias Clasen wrote: > >> > >> Lets not make this a drama. > >> > >> Package maintenance changes have never gone through change

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:55:30AM +0200, Sandro wrote: > However, it surprises me that for a package, that is part of the > deliverables of Fedora releases, no coordination effort was made to > transition the package from Red Hat maintenance to Fedora > maintenance. I would even go as far as that

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 09:40, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 2:28 PM Stephen Smoogen > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 07:20, Matthias Clasen wrote: > >> > >> Lets not make this a drama. > >> > >> Package maintenance changes have never gone through change proposals.

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 2:28 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 07:20, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> >> Lets not make this a drama. >> >> Package maintenance changes have never gone through change proposals. >> > > I am sorry, but this was made into a drama by the way this was

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 07:20, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Lets not make this a drama. > > Package maintenance changes have never gone through change proposals. > > I am sorry, but this was made into a drama by the way this was executed. Surprise is the opposite of engagement and dropping a ton of

Re: LibreOffice packages

Hello If you are still looking for co-maintainers, I can also help. Hussein Am 01.06.23 um 22:16 schrieb Gwyn Ciesla via devel: I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. -- Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers

Re: LibreOffice packages

Terry, > I appreciate and am empathetic to all of those carrying the burden of this > and the thousands of other RPM packages. As a users of Fedora + RPM Fusion + > Cinnamon Desktop as my daily laptop driver since 2011, I love Fedora and am a > heavy user of Flatpacks. So thank you all. > >

Re: LibreOffice packages

I appreciate and am empathetic to all of those carrying the burden of this and the thousands of other RPM packages. As a users of Fedora + RPM Fusion + Cinnamon Desktop as my daily laptop driver since 2011, I love Fedora and am a heavy user of Flatpacks. So thank you all. That said, I will

Re: LibreOffice packages

Lets not make this a drama. Package maintenance changes have never gone through change proposals. > However, it surprises me that for a package, that is part of the deliverables of Fedora releases, no coordination effort was made to transition the package from Red Hat maintenance to Fedora

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Il 02/06/23 01:55, Sandro ha scritto: > I'm having a bad feeling about Fedora future lately, seeing all these RH > withdrawals from the project. That escalated quickly, yes. More worryingly: It escalated non-openly and non-collaboratively. > I hope to be wrong. But could Fedora survive the

Re: LibreOffice packages

Damn thats a long list. On 6/2/23 01:21, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the lights on. Also of the many dependencies? As far as I can tell, from the list in the orphaned package report, all

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 02/06/23 01:55, Sandro ha scritto: > > However, it surprises me that for a package, that is part of the > deliverables of Fedora releases, no coordination effort was made to > transition the package from Red Hat maintenance to Fedora maintenance. I > would even go as far as that this should

Re: LibreOffice packages

I can help co-maintaining and I think I can bring another co-maintainer. We've been creating custom libreoffice packages for a project so, we can bring a little experience El jue, 1 jun 2023 a las 14:17, Gwyn Ciesla via devel (< devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió: > I've taken ownership of

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 01-06-2023 21:59, Christian Schaller wrote: On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage of Flatpak

Re: LibreOffice packages

Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep > the lights on. Also of the many dependencies? As far as I can tell, from the list in the orphaned package report, all these are part of the LibreOffice stack: > flute

Re: LibreOffice packages

Yes, sorry about that meant now of course  On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, 6:45 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/1/23 15:59, Christian Schaller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > > > wrote: > >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? > > > > There are a lot of

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/1/23 15:59, Christian Schaller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? > > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage > of Flatpak is that it means package once and then deploy

Re: LibreOffice packages

I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with Proton

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > > Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? > -- > Sincerely, > Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage of Flatpak is that it means package once and then

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/1/23 14:30, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Hey, > > as you've probably seen, the LibreOffice RPMS have recently been orphaned, > and I thought it would be good to explain the reasons > behind this. > > The Red Hat Display Systems team (the team behind most of Red Hat’s desktop > efforts) has