On 01/18/2011 10:49 PM, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:13:43PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
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?
I could imagine that, hypothetically, GNewsense, Trisquel, Fedora
and, possibly, Debian might need to ship an "acceptably free" version
by their own standards if there were any doubt as to the appropriate
freeness of the LibreOffice code by the standards of the particular
distribution involved.
In addition, Debian may need to patch heavily to meet the requirements
of some of the disparate hardware architectures, for example.
Likewise, I could imagine Fedora being slightly ahead of Red Hat in
packaging and both being out of synch. with the RPM implemented in
OpenSUSE, for example.
All the best,
Andy
I am interested to see Rene's input on this as he is part of the Debian
team.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
