> Am 03.06.2023 um 02:06 schrieb Sandro <li...@penguinpee.nl>: > > 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 >>> maintenance. I would even go as far as that this should have been >> I think this sentiment is getting ahead of things. This thread _is_ that >> effort. Asking people to submit a Change when they want or need to stop >> working on something seems... burdensome. (And, uh, what happens if that >> change is rejected? There's no _making_ people do things.) > > So, what is the contingency plan then? LibreOffice is a huge package and I > could imagine that taking over maintenance of it is not an easy endeavor. > > Taking into consideration the circumstances explained in replies later, I can > understand that hands were tied. Yet, the decision to stop shipping > LibreOffice is one that affects future RHEL releases and Red Hat's customers. > Yet, the decision to orphan the LibreOffice stack of packages affects a much > larger group of users.
If I understand the announcement correctly, future RHEL will not include LibreOffice anymore. That’s the reason, why the maintainers have withdrawn. > 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 want to to reiterate the Flatpak vs. RPM > discussion. But maybe that topic needs to be picked up and discussed, so we > get a better understanding of where this will leave us. Instead of Flatpak I would prefer to pick up the software directly from the project. LO provides a rpm. Maybe we have to change our packaging strategy and allow „installation rpms“ that pick up an OSS project’s rpm and repack it with the proper system integration. We had something like that for Java a decade ago. That’s probably not an optimal solution, but IMO way better than yet another re-packager. At least I would be willing to trust an OSS project more than some repackager. > Let's hope that at least some lessons will be learned from this rather rushed > decision. At least that is what it appears to be. Well, my lesson was years ago to drop Fedora desktop from my systems - too bulky, too bloated, too unreliable for my liking. A nice toy, but nothing for serious productive work. -- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy p...@fedoraproject.org Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST /UTC+2) Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
