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 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 > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Why not LibreOffice? It doesn't make a lot of sense to retain the soffice binary name for LibreOffice anyway. Besides, I think LibreOffice would be more amenable to a permanent binary name change than Apache OpenOffice.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
