Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Am 03.07.23 um 18:07 schrieb Simon de Vlieger: On 7/3/23 13:46, Ralf Corsépius wrote: It is the core of the problem esp. big US companies tend to ignore. May-be you guys are not aware of there are tendencies to legally prohibit such "cloud solutions" in many countries? It's generally not so

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 5:01 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/3/23 08:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos < > jxftw2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is > >> importan

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 7/3/23 13:46, Ralf Corsépius wrote: It is the core of the problem esp. big US companies tend to ignore. May-be you guys are not aware of there are tendencies to legally prohibit such "cloud solutions" in many countries? It's generally not so much 'legally prohibit' as 'data has to be kept

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Am 01.07.23 um 14:28 schrieb Peter Robinson: On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:50 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 01/07/2023 13:36, Chris Adams wrote: A lot of the corporate world has gone to the "cloud" don't have to worry about local backups of important documents and spreadsheets, they

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 7/3/23 09:23, Victor Toso wrote: On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 10:09:15PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: Victor (CC'd), do you want to pick up grilo and grilo-plugins? Sure, I'll keep maintaining both in Fedora. Excellent! Can you click on the "Take" button at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gr

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 03/07/2023 01:28, Michael Catanzaro wrote: OK, host shared libraries and flatpaked libraries will be loaded at the same time, but I really doubt that's going to be at all significant. Include dozens of bundled libraries here too. Only runtimes can use shared memory. They do consume signi

Re: LibreOffice packages

n fixing that. Furthermore, sandboxed applications have well-defined interfaces with the rest of the system, which makes isolation techniques like SELinux, Landlock, or even virtualization much easier to apply. > Anyway, I don't mean to suggest we should stop packaging applications > o

Re: LibreOffice packages

ks-permission-models.html ) Anyway, I don't mean to suggest we should stop packaging applications or that the work to keep the LibreOffice packages maintained is not valuable (thank you to everyone working on that). Being able to continue shipping LibreOffice by default is especially

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Peter Robinson wrote: > Someone doing work in EPEL is quite a bit different to my point of a > corporate organisation downstream of RHEL adding value and > differentiation that Red Hat doesn't provide as part of RHEL. The discussion was about people being able or unable to obtain th

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 10:27 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Peter Robinson wrote: > > Assuming those "binary compatible distributions" choose to add > > LibreOffice back in and support it, given what they actually do in > > terms of actual development it's actually pretty unlikely they're >

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Peter Robinson wrote: > Assuming those "binary compatible distributions" choose to add > LibreOffice back in and support it, given what they actually do in > terms of actual development it's actually pretty unlikely they're > going to do all the extra work to add back an office suite and all the >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/3/23 08:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is >> important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some >> optional access to Office direc

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Fri, Jun 30 2023 at 05:40:33 AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: So Red Hat is essentially killing all work on desktop packages, not just on LibreOffice? No. Losing Bastien is extremely unfortunate and demoralizing, but we are not killing all work on desktop packages. Michael _

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 11:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 02/07/2023 10:51, Simon de Vlieger wrote: > > The suppliers for these enterprise distributions and the support they > > offer also abide by political lines. > > Indeed. That's why having RHEL repacks (Alma, Rocky, Oracle Linux)

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 02/07/2023 10:51, Simon de Vlieger wrote: The suppliers for these enterprise distributions and the support they offer also abide by political lines. Indeed. That's why having RHEL repacks (Alma, Rocky, Oracle Linux) is good. While your data won't be gone in an instant you still end up in th

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 7/2/23 08:56, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 01/07/2023 14:28, Peter Robinson wrote: This sort of comment is off topic, various companies are free to do with their data as they wish, just as you are free to do with it as you please. This is not offtopic. What I mean is that a distributi

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 01/07/2023 14:28, Peter Robinson wrote: This sort of comment is off topic, various companies are free to do with their data as they wish, just as you are free to do with it as you please. This is not offtopic. What I mean is that a distribution targeted at enterprise use should have a stand

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Jun 29, 2023, at 7:47 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Here is a list of Fedora packages which I maintained or co-maintained which I > won't be able to contribute to anymore: > > sloccount I grabbed sloccount as I’ve found it useful over the years. It looks the right level of incredibly low main

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 6/29/23 16:47, Bastien Nocera wrote: Hello, As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sound-juicer) and libfprint/f

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Am 01.07.23 um 14:28 schrieb Peter Robinson: On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:50 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 01/07/2023 13:36, Chris Adams wrote: A lot of the corporate world has gone to the "cloud" don't have to worry about local backups of important documents and spreadsheets, they ge

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:50 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 01/07/2023 13:36, Chris Adams wrote: > > A lot of the corporate world has gone to the "cloud" > > > don't have to worry about local backups of important documents and > > spreadsheets, they get sharing with minimal effort, they

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 01/07/2023 13:36, Chris Adams wrote: A lot of the corporate world has gone to the "cloud" don't have to worry about local backups of important documents and spreadsheets, they get sharing with minimal effort, they can access things from their mobile devices, etc. And voluntarily hand over

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said: > Peter Robinson wrote: > > I would hardly say Libreoffice, bluetooth on the desktop and certain > > iDevice pieces is "killing all work on the desktop" it's more focusing > > on things that are important to their customers in those contexts. > > What corporat

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:30 PM Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:00 AM Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: > > > > Peter Robinson wrote: > > > I would hardly say Libreoffice, bluetooth on the desktop and certain > > > iDevice pieces is "killing all work on the desktop" it's more fo

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:00 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Peter Robinson wrote: > > I would hardly say Libreoffice, bluetooth on the desktop and certain > > iDevice pieces is "killing all work on the desktop" it's more focusing > > on things that are important to their customers in those c

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 29/06/2023 16:47, Bastien Nocera wrote: Hello, As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sound-juicer) and libfprint/f

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 1:00 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > What corporate desktop customers do not use LibreOffice? I know two big-name scientific instrument manufacturers that offer RHEL workstations on which to run the control software. I suspect there are other domains with similar use c

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Peter Robinson wrote: > I would hardly say Libreoffice, bluetooth on the desktop and certain > iDevice pieces is "killing all work on the desktop" it's more focusing > on things that are important to their customers in those contexts. What corporate desktop customers do not use LibreOffice? If RH

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:41 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice > > packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, > > multimedia ap

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Bastien Nocera wrote: > As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice > packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, > multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sound-juicer) and > libfprint/fprintd is being s

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 2023-06-29 18:09, Bastien Nocera wrote: Do you want to pick up the rest of the libimobiledevice stack as well? That's ifuse, libplist, libusbmuxd and usbmuxd. I've just picked these up, thanks! Will work together with Neal on this stack as part of the Fedora Asahi SIG. Cheers Davide _

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Do you want to pick up the rest of the libimobiledevice stack as well? That's ifuse, libplist, libusbmuxd and usbmuxd. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 10:48, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hello, > > As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice > packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, > multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

I've picked up low-memory-monitor On 6/29/23 08:46, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:48 AM Bastien Nocera wrote: Hello, As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop B

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:48 AM Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Hello, > > As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice > packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, > multimedia applications (namely totem

Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Hello, As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sound-juicer) and libfprint/fprintd is being stopped, and all the rest of

Re: LibreOffice packages

I built it successfully in the side tag by disabling tests. There's a new release; I'll see if that fixes things. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with Proton Mail secure e

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:40:39 +0200 Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 01. 06. 23 22:16, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > > I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep > > the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. > > Thanks. > > Could you please prioritize making it b

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 01. 06. 23 22:16, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. Thanks. Could you please prioritize making it build? The LibreOffice package fails to build in rawhide for months. It'

Re: LibreOffice packages

Michael Catanzaro píše v St 07. 06. 2023 v 08:15 -0500: > > Ideally all bundled dependencies should be hooked up to some sort of > automation that notices when there are upstream updates available, > comparable to upstream release monitoring. On Flathub this is done by > flathub-external-data-ch

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/7/23 15:15, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [1] https://github.com/flathub/flatpak-external-data-checker Oh, thanks, didn't know about that. Will try to make use of it for LibreOffice, "Add metadata for flatpak-external-data-ch

Re: LibreOffice packages

The main difference is that Fedora - be it rpms, flatpaks from module rpms (current state), flatpaks from whatever - comes with the promise of all the four F's, including freedom from legal issues as outlined in our guidelines. That enables RedHat to make the guarantees which they make for their

Re: LibreOffice packages

Ideally all bundled dependencies should be hooked up to some sort of automation that notices when there are upstream updates available, comparable to upstream release monitoring. On Flathub this is done by flathub-external-data-checker [1], but using it is optional and it's not useful if it's

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 18:07:04 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On the other hand, the libreoffice flatpak bundles ~80 projects: > - gpgme (huh?) This... > - openldap (huh?) and perhaps this are probably because it is possible to sign and encrypt ODF documents using OpenPGP. Some details are here:

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Wednesday, 07 June 2023 at 08:51, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 6/6/23 18:07, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > In general, I do like having software available as flatpaks, > > especially if it's not available from Fedora repositories. > > However, there's also the question of *trust* - do I trust the >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:51 AM Stephan Bergmann wrote: > > If you are talking about the LibreOffice upstream flatpak on Flathub > (i.e., > ): Yes, that is what I

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/6/23 18:07, Fabio Valentini wrote: In general, I do like having software available as flatpaks, especially if it's not available from Fedora repositories. However, there's also the question of *trust* - do I trust the software source and / or the people / projects providing them? Let's take

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:00 PM Christian Schaller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: >> >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? >> -- >> Sincerely, >> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) > > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstr

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:50 AM Leon Fauster via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Is the Fedora OCI flatpak approach not about the trust into the chain of > flatpak creation? src -> signed rpm -> flatpak? So, even in an ideal world > where RHEL is immutable and the best workstation e

Re: LibreOffice packages

Is the Fedora OCI flatpak approach not about the trust into the chain of flatpak creation? src -> signed rpm -> flatpak? So, even in an ideal world where RHEL is immutable and the best workstation experience is based on flatpaks - RPMs are the building block. This is completly different to the

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 16:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:37:24 PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen > wrote: > > > > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in > > it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? > > Two layers: > > * Runtime

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 04:46:42 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Fedora could, of course ship its own SELinux policy for Flatpak (and I recommend this), but Flatpak will not (and cannot reasonably be expected to) integrate with SELinux natively. Well it would have to be a very permissive p

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 04:49:07 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: “several hundred megabits a second on tap at all times” is completely out of the question for the majority of the world’s population. I’m not sure what the median bandwidth in the developing world is, but it is far FAR less t

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 16:49 -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/5/23 15:01, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:51 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > > > On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > > > > > > Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 15:01, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:51 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: >> >>> Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create >>> packages for every distribution is not reasonable. >> >> I would never wan

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 16:35, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 02:09:58 PM -0400, Steve Grubb > wrote: >> Yes. And how does it's security model work? > > The security model is that the application is assumed to be compromised > by malicious input and is trying to do evil things to the host s

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 02:09:58 PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: Yes. And how does it's security model work? The security model is that the application is assumed to be compromised by malicious input and is trying to do evil things to the host system, like read your home directory and send cop

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:37:24 PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? Two layers: * Runtime (base platform, responsibility of runtime maintainers) * Application (inclu

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:05:25 PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a specific build of a lower layer. So using the up-thread example, if there's a security update to zlib, the lower layer can rebuild to pick it up, but until the up

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 05/06/23 19:51, Roberto Ragusa ha scritto: > On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > >> Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create >> packages for every distribution is not reasonable. > I would never want upstream to do packaging, as experience teaches, > they wou

Re: LibreOffice packages

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 13:05 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a > > specific build of a lower layer. So using the up-thread example, if > > there's a security update to zlib, the lower layer

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:51 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > > Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create > > packages for every distribution is not reasonable. > > I would never want upstream to do packaging, as experience te

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 13:05 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said: > > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is > > it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? > > It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depen

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 14:10, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Monday, June 5, 2023 1:37:24 PM EDT Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 13:32, Michael Catanzaro > > > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > > > > > > wrote: > > > > zlib should be added to

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 2:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said: 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a specific build of

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Monday, June 5, 2023 1:37:24 PM EDT Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 13:32, Michael Catanzaro > > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > > > > wrote: > > > zlib should be added to the standard freedesktop.org runtime if it is > > > not > > > al

Re: LibreOffice packages

Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said: > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in it? Is > it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? It's layered, but from what I understand, an upper layer depends on a specific build of a lower layer. So using the up-thread

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 19:13, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Are you willing to do the packaging work? Asking upstream to create packages for every distribution is not reasonable. I would never want upstream to do packaging, as experience teaches, they would certainly do it wrong. Packaging and integration is

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 13:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: > > zlib should be added to the standard freedesktop.org runtime if it is > > not > > already included. > > zlib is included in both freedesktop-sdk and also GNOME runtime

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:13:50 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: zlib should be added to the standard freedesktop.org runtime if it is not already included. zlib is included in both freedesktop-sdk and also GNOME runtimes, so nobody should need to bundle it. Michael

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 12:13, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 6/5/23 09:35, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >> "easily install from Flathub" brings us closer to Windows where you >> "easily" install software from random places on the Internet and they >> bring their own bundled outdated versions of librarie

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 05/06/23 17:00, Michael J Gruber ha scritto: > I've taken up hyphen and the orphaned hyphen-* packages. They don't appear to > be high maintenance, but co-admins welcome, of course. Similarly, feel free > to admin as co-admin to other hyphen-* in case something needs coordinations. > The lang

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/5/23 09:35, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: "easily install from Flathub" brings us closer to Windows where you "easily" install software from random places on the Internet and they bring their own bundled outdated versions of libraries. Flatpaks have the added downside of not integra

Re: LibreOffice packages

I've taken up hyphen and the orphaned hyphen-* packages. They don't appear to be high maintenance, but co-admins welcome, of course. Similarly, feel free to admin as co-admin to other hyphen-* in case something needs coordinations. The language packages are basically a "cp" in "%install", though

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 3:39 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 05/06/2023 13:54, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I'm not sure what led you to the conclusion that IBM has anything to > > do with this or that "they fired a lot of good engineers". I don't > > see evidence of either being the case. > >

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 05/06/2023 13:54, Josh Boyer wrote: I'm not sure what led you to the conclusion that IBM has anything to do with this or that "they fired a lot of good engineers". I don't see evidence of either being the case. Please don't state your own assumptions as facts. https://news.ycombinator.com/

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:43 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > We cannot ship anything from Flathub because > FESCo will not allow it. I don't *like* this FESCo requirement, but I > also don't expect that to change. I haven't studied that ruling, but perhaps the assumption was that said software is

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 08:45:28 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I'm not going to defend callous layoffs during a time when Red Hat is > earning big profits. And I have no clue what our corporate overloads It is a fact of corporate life that if you are a manager and want to be promoted, cutting h

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 3:56 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: > > No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with > > F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep > > Fedora Diehards from jumpin

Re: LibreOffice packages

> I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the > lights > on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. Don't know how much time I'll be able to contribute, but you can count me in. As Mattia suggested, I think it might be a good idea to set up libreoffice-sig. A.FI. __

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 09:09:57AM +0200, Peter Boy wrote: > > Am 03.06.2023 um 02:06 schrieb Sandro : > > 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

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Saturday, 03 June 2023 at 14:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [...] > My $0.02: maintaining complex desktop applications as part of the operating > system requires significant effort and produces low value for users when you > can easily install that app from Flathub instead. (It *especially* doesn'

Re: LibreOffice packages

Il 02/06/23 09:22, Jiri Vanek ha scritto: > Damn thats a long list. > > Indeed. I can help and pick up a couple of packages, but what about the hunspell*, hyphen*, mythes*? I think those will require more work than what a volunteer packager can bring. Yet, I suspect dropping them will blow up qu

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 9:09 AM Matthew Miller mailto:mat...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: I think this sentiment is getting ahead of things. This thread _is_ that effort. Yes, but. In general, a better approach is to say "we plan on orphaning the packages in $timeframe". ... RH, for th

Re: LibreOffice packages

robably seen, the LibreOffice RPMS have recently been orphaned, and I thought it would be good to explain the reasons behind this. The Red Hat Display Systems team (the team behind most of Red Hat’s desktop efforts) has maintained the LibreOffice packages in Fedora for years as part

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 9:09 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > I think this sentiment is getting ahead of things. This thread _is_ that effort. Yes, but. In general, a better approach is to say "we plan on orphaning the packages in $timeframe". Even if $timeframe is a week, it shifts the perception to "

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 09:56:40 AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: Yes, Fedora is dying. Slow, but imminent. IBM doesn't want to keep it in a good condition, so they fired a lot of good engineers. It's very sad. I have been using it for years. I'm not going to defend callous layoffs du

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos wrote: Hello, While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some optional access to Office directly from the image file. Have you considered shipping t

Re: LibreOffice packages

Hello, While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some optional access to Office directly from the image file. Have you considered shipping the LibreOffice flatpak via the ISO much like Fedora Silverblue does wi

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Am 03.06.2023 um 09:56 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > : > > On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: >> No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with F39. >> Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep Fedora >> Diehards from jumpi

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 03/06/2023 09:51, Samuel Sieb wrote: Did you read the whole thread?  It's not going anywhere.  People have stepped up to maintain it. LibreOffice is a complex project. It will be very difficult to maintain it. It's not just a trivial Version+Release bump, no. They will need to backport pat

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep Fedora Diehards from jumping to another popular distribution. Yes, Fedora is dying. Slow, but imminent

Re: LibreOffice packages

> If I understand the announcement correctly, future RHEL will not include > LibreOffice > anymore. That’s the reason, why the maintainers have withdrawn. > > > Instead of Flatpak I would prefer to pick up the software directly from the > project. LO > provides a rpm. Maybe we have to change ou

Re: LibreOffice packages

On 6/2/23 19:50, Ralph Bromley wrote: This is a stupid bonehead idea, libreoffice is just too big to reliably run in flatpak. Plus what about java integration, guess the languagetool plugin wont work now and I will have to use its stupud online version where you havwe to pay to add words. Oh w

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Am 03.06.2023 um 02:06 schrieb Sandro : > > 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 >>> tra

Re: LibreOffice packages

> Am 03.06.2023 um 05:11 schrieb Ralph Bromley : > > Look its not like I have not tried libreoffice as a flat but as of now it > looks out of place, I can't even see the icons even when I use the default > adwaita or breeze themes. > How is this an improvement? > I wanted to leave ubuntu becau

Re: LibreOffice packages

Look its not like I have not tried libreoffice as a flat but as of now it looks out of place, I can't even see the icons even when I use the default adwaita or breeze themes. How is this an improvement? I wanted to leave ubuntu because of crap like this, where they forced snaps down my throat no

Re: LibreOffice packages

This is a stupid bonehead idea, libreoffice is just too big to reliably run in flatpak. Plus what about java integration, guess the languagetool plugin wont work now and I will have to use its stupud online version where you havwe to pay to add words. Oh well, back to debian. ___

Re: LibreOffice packages

No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep Fedora Diehards from jumping to another popular distribution. Leslie Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:07 p.m., Sandro wrote: On 0

Re: LibreOffice packages

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 mainte

  1   2   >