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
