[ 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
