Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
Rene Engelhard wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Besides that, distros will have to continue libreoffice-build, which does still contain patches. (Removing those would be a big regression about what we ship right now) Thanks. So some distributions will still need to patch LibreOffice because the vanilla LibreOffice would be a regression for their users with respect to the current OpenOffice.org/Go-OO/LibreOffice they ship. This, together with issues like the weird problem you linked to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31271 indeed qualify as compelling arguments for distributions needing to patch LibreOffice much like they do with OpenOffice.org (even though of course in some cases the patches will be temporary fixes that will eventually get merged in the main codebase). Get some clue. And don't speak about this if you don't, kthxbye. ... Sorry, I apologize No need. LibreOffice is meritocracy-driven, not politeness-driven. Thanks, Andrea. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
Hi, On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 07:13:56PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Rene Engelhard wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Besides that, distros will have to continue libreoffice-build, which does still contain patches. (Removing those would be a big regression about what we ship right now) Thanks. So some distributions will still need to patch LibreOffice because the vanilla LibreOffice would be a regression for their users with respect to the current OpenOffice.org/Go-OO/LibreOffice they ship. Yep. This, together with issues like the weird problem you linked to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31271 indeed qualify as compelling arguments for distributions needing to patch LibreOffice much like they do with OpenOffice.org (even though of not as much, as getting fixes or other stuff into the main codebase is far better in LibO than it was in OOo where it was extremely difficult. course in some cases the patches will be temporary fixes that will eventually get merged in the main codebase). Yep. And most of the go-oo fixes are already in the stock LibO anyway, so nothing to big here either. Grüße/Regards, René ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 11:13 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:13:43PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: .. make me think that fragmentation, while of course allowed by the license, should be discouraged when it comes to functionality; I'm not questioning desktop integration or branding, but I'd like to know why distributions feel they have to make changes to functionality... Because bugs should be fixed ASAP, not when you think one wants to release. :-) I guess we fight for this basic right. On the other hand, I think Andrea is right - my hope is that lots of the distributions on every platform will converge more onto the LibreOffice core over time, and require fewer patches, and (perhaps) a few more configuration options. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:20:45PM +, Michael Meeks wrote: On the other hand, I think Andrea is right - my hope is that lots of the distributions on every platform will converge more onto the LibreOffice core over time, and require fewer patches, and (perhaps) a few more configuration options. True, but you in etther case have distro-specific things to do (caring about FHS when others don't, system-libs wherever possible) or stuff caused by security other other infrastructure/quality concerns (see Mozilla Adressbook - yes, that feature is unimportant but the best example here - which is disabled in most distributions but afaik not in vanilla LibreOffice). Grüße/Regards, René ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:13:43PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: It is a good idea to track changes, but it is probably a questionable practice to make changes. I expected LibreOffice to be consistent across Nonsense. This is OSS. it). Are there compelling reasons why distributions should ship versions of LibreOffice that have significant changes with respect to the official version? Define significant changes? Does ripping off the Mozilla address book support (implicitely, because using system-mozilla) count as that? Would you prefer Linux distros having a obsolete, patched and insecure Mozilla copy there? No, not acceptable. The OpenOffice.org experience, and the first distribution-specific LibreOffice bugs like http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg04508.html Wow. I don't think Petr added a patch here, so it might just be system differences? Petr, correct me if I am wrong. Besides that, distros will have to continue libreoffice-build, which does still contain patches. (Removing those would be a big regression about what we ship right now) make me think that fragmentation, while of course allowed by the license, should be discouraged when it comes to functionality; I'm not questioning desktop integration or branding, but I'd like to know why distributions feel they have to make changes to functionality... Because bugs should be fixed ASAP, not when you think one wants to release. What if Debian didn't backport important fixes to it's 3.2.1 from 3.3 or so? Should we release wiith known important bugs in a stable release. Living 2 years with it? No. You have to care about quality. Besides that, some distro-specific bugs are not by feature patches, but just because of other bugs, Like bugs in system-libs, new version of systen lib breaking XYZ (e.g. the ) wrapping issue, need to find out the bugnr caused by changes in the Unicode Standard and ICU 4.4), build issues etc. Those you can't foresee and neither does documenting every change help here. Get some clue. And don't speak about this if you don't, kthxbye. Noone does this intentionally. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
[ fullquoting for discuss@dfs sake. forgot the CC. Not that it matters much, but anyways. ] Hi, On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:13:43PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: It is a good idea to track changes, but it is probably a questionable practice to make changes. I expected LibreOffice to be consistent across Nonsense. This is OSS. it). Are there compelling reasons why distributions should ship versions of LibreOffice that have significant changes with respect to the official version? Define significant changes? Does ripping off the Mozilla address book support (implicitely, because using system-mozilla) count as that? Would you prefer Linux distros having a obsolete, patched and insecure Mozilla copy there? No, not acceptable. The OpenOffice.org experience, and the first distribution-specific LibreOffice bugs like http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg04508.html Wow. I don't think Petr added a patch here, so it might just be system differences? Petr, correct me if I am wrong. Besides that, distros will have to continue libreoffice-build, which does still contain patches. (Removing those would be a big regression about what we ship right now) make me think that fragmentation, while of course allowed by the license, should be discouraged when it comes to functionality; I'm not questioning desktop integration or branding, but I'd like to know why distributions feel they have to make changes to functionality... Because bugs should be fixed ASAP, not when you think one wants to release. What if Debian didn't backport important fixes to it's 3.2.1 from 3.3 or so? Should we release wiith known important bugs in a stable release. Living 2 years with it? No. You have to care about quality. Besides that, some distro-specific bugs are not by feature patches, but just because of other bugs, Like bugs in system-libs, new version of systen lib breaking XYZ (e.g. the ) wrapping issue, need to find out the bugnr caused by changes in the Unicode Standard and ICU 4.4), build issues etc. Those https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31271 is what I meant here. you can't foresee and neither does documenting every change help here. Get some clue. And don't speak about this if you don't, kthxbye. Noone does this intentionally. Sorry, I apologize for the first two sentences of this. But I am getting annoyed by those senseless discussions. Should we repeat the errors Oracle did again? Grüße/Regards, René ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
On 09/01/2011 Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: I think that we should have a webpage where Linux distributions who are packaging LibO, could list what changes they made compared to the official build by TDF. ... So, is it a good idea to ask the Linux distributions to publish the changes they made to the official build ? It is a good idea to track changes, but it is probably a questionable practice to make changes. I expected LibreOffice to be consistent across distributions (something that of course at the moment is not true of OpenOffice.org since most distributions apply significant patches to it). Are there compelling reasons why distributions should ship versions of LibreOffice that have significant changes with respect to the official version? The OpenOffice.org experience, and the first distribution-specific LibreOffice bugs like http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg04508.html make me think that fragmentation, while of course allowed by the license, should be discouraged when it comes to functionality; I'm not questioning desktop integration or branding, but I'd like to know why distributions feel they have to make changes to functionality... Regards, Andrea. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
