On 02/19/2013 07:50 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
It will be clarified. The concern there started with the assumption
that "yum install OpenOffice.org" would install something else. It
doesn't, of course. So the following discussion is largely irrelevant,
but again we will be following the FES
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Thanks kindly for the update!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:55:55PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
Since this has been approved I'm curious as to the method by which the
non-conflict with LO is to be achieved...
We've looked at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EnvironmentModules under FESCo's
reco
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:55:55PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
>
> Since this has been approved I'm curious as to the method by which the
> non-conflict with LO is to be achieved...
>
I don't know the answer to this. Hopefully Andrea is pondering it and
working with the libreoffice maintainers i
Hi
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
> But this is the silliest nitpick from my question which is surrounding the
> next steps for AOO, how the conflicts will be resolved and how the package
> is being treated (pick up an orphaned package or a new package) plus who
> the mai
>
> Apache Openoffice has no connection to Oracle
>
>
No it has more of a link with IBM - but I'm not talking about who the
corporate sponsor is but rather the principles involved...
In the MySQL thread Oracle had to be given a reminder about friendship
being an important principle... and here we
Hi
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:55 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>
> This made me think of the reminder that had to be given to Oracle about
> the Fedora principles and how friendship is a key one...
>
>
Apache Openoffice has no connection to Oracle
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproje
>
>
>
> Will Andrea be maintainer of the package or someone else in the AOO group?
> There didn't seem to be much enthusiasm there in packaging themselves...
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201302.mbox/%3c5112b95e.3010...@apache.org%3E
>
> That was the last message the
Jef Spaleta wrote:
> yum info dpkg
That dpkg package is there only for tools like debootstrap or alien to work,
not as an alternative to RPM.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
James Hogarth wrote:
> Right now there's no roadmap for 4.0 - no milestone dates, alpha dates or
> beta dates... The best that exists for this is a nightly snapshot from
> trunk covered in caveats about how unstable it's likely to be.
>
> The openoffice.org wiki doesn't even mention 3.4 much less
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:50:11 +
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application.
No, it is not. To stay with pulseaudio -- when you're playing a song,
it's not exactly easy to tell if it goes to your headphones through
alsa, oss, openal, pulseaudio, or a combin
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> I don't think that the guiding principle should be: "here is some FOSS
> code,
> lets package it".
>
Claiming what it shouldn't be is the easy part. Writing up a proposal on
what the guiding principles should be and building consensus o
> Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones.
> There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work
> needed to support two office suites. You know kernel is the base upon
> everything runs, right? Please, don't make the most basic component
> that ca
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO
>
> We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them
> with
> LO, but we did not.
>
Yes because we had some problems with how openoffice.org
> Reductio ad absurdum.
To me this is as absurd as the others.
> Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO
We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them with
LO, but we did not.
(I guess, at this point, it is quite clear that I am losing
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:07:02 +
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of
> Fedora?
Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones.
There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work
needed to support t
This thread is over.
I'd like to ask everyone to take a few minutes to re-read:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
and get some away time from the discussion and think about things and
how to approach discussions more constructively.
Thanks,
Stephen
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"Don't derail a
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of
Fedora?
Reductio ad absurdum. We will discuss serious considerations based on
actual proposals on a case by case basis. Alternative office suites
already exist in Fedo
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 20:56 +, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
> > especially since there is a default installed already.
>
> The first time I ran an installer 10 years ago, I remember staring at a screen
> which gave me 2 options: GNOME and KDE, and the description for both of them
> were exa
> There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you
> used already exist in Fedora.
So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of Fedora?
> That doesn't solve the existing problem at all. There is no reason why we
> should have say Epiphany but exclu
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> For starters:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/669
Uhm that ticket is specifically about a feature proposal to include
something as a default installed tech.
We are not talking about AOO as a default installed package. You are
confla
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >
> > Sarcasm isn't going to resolve the problems.
>
> But it might highlight the problem with this "lets have some more choices"
> madness.
>
There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you
used already exist in
> We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora
> ecosystem. That's all.
How is packaging AOO a requirement for that? They can compile AOO and work on
it just fine.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars
and elect
>>
>> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
>> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
>> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
>
>
> On an F18 system
> yum info smart
> yum info dpkg
>
You do know the differen
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> Users don't care where LO comes from at all.
>
> Then how will you empower them to make a choice between LO and AOO?
We don't. We don't need to, and we don't care to.
We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora
ecosys
>>
>> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
>> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
>> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
>>
>> Now why did *that* happen? It is Fedora, isn't it?
>>
>>
>
> Sarcasm isn't go
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
On an F18 system
yum info smart
yu
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> Ok.
>
>
> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
>
> Now why did *that
>>> There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
>>> more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
>>
>> We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
>>
>
> If you want to build a distribution with a single default for
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Debarshi Ray < wrote:
> > There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
> > more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
>
> We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
>
If you wa
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application. The main
> point is that you are confusing users and also developers. Why the hell
> should a random user have to choose from half a dozen seemingly similar
> programs when the infor
> There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
> more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
> especially since there is a default installed already.
The first time I ra
> Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is
> end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever
> used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design
> interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO
> we're not breaking some third
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> If you consider that free software is meant for everybody, irrespective of
> their technical abilities, then, yes, it creates too much confusion.
>
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
more isn't rea
>> I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me.
>> We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back
>> Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom
>> of choice.
>>
> The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be
> more capab
On 02/06/2013 02:17 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
On 6 February 2013 12:33, Stephan Bergmann mailto:sberg...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 02/06/2013 02:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
About the "soffice" alias, it still breaks parallel installation
in F18
(just tried, the desktop
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
nobody will ever invoke "openoffice.org" if he wants to
run "libreoffice" [...] by pure
common sense and not even taking trademarks into account.
My understanding is that trademarks don't protect functional interfaces,
so in the absence of legal adv
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:42:00PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> What the proposal is meant to ensure is that Fedora 19 users will be
> able to install OpenOffice 4 from the official Fedora repositories
> and without experiencing any conflicts with other packages. It seems
> clear from the cur
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:19:25PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> This is going towards getting political... Let's say that, at the
> very least, nobody will ever invoke "openoffice.org" if he wants to
> run "libreoffice", regardless of which software is the newcomer. So
> at least this source of
On 06/02/2013 David Tardon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:36:36AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
As Stephan wrote, soffice is the main problem (and I wonder if
unopkg is in the same situation or is not problematic).
unopkg is in the same situation, of course.
Thanks. I edited the proposal p
>
> There are some critical differences here. Especially, if I understood
> correctly the discussion we had at FOSDEM, the fact that OpenOffice is not
> going to be on install media or in the default package selection allows for
> some flexibility with respect to deadlines.
>
>
Except that the prop
On 6 February 2013 12:33, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 02:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> About the "soffice" alias, it still breaks parallel installation in F18
>> (just tried, the desktop integration from OpenOffice conflicts with
>> libreoffice-core). It seems that the upstream L
On 05/02/2013 James Hogarth wrote:
Let's take a look at a similar (although of course not identical)
situation [...] the MariaDB packaging review request.
There are some critical differences here. Especially, if I understood
correctly the discussion we had at FOSDEM, the fact that OpenOffice i
On 02/06/2013 02:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
About the "soffice" alias, it still breaks parallel installation in F18
(just tried, the desktop integration from OpenOffice conflicts with
libreoffice-core). It seems that the upstream LibreOffice packages no
longer use the "soffice" alias (at least
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:36:36AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >>On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> >>>$ rpm -ql libreoffice-core | grep bin/ | xargs ls -ld
> >>>-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 36
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
$ rpm -ql libreoffice-core | grep bin/ | xargs ls -ld
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 362 Dec 6 18:37 /usr/bin/libreoffice
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 32 Dec 6 18:37 /us
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2013-02-04, 19:52 GMT, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > It's an outdated article and not much relevant to the current
> > discussion (you see, it says "the Symphony repository"...).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The Symphony code is like everything else in
On 2013-02-04, 19:52 GMT, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> It's an outdated article and not much relevant to the current
> discussion (you see, it says "the Symphony repository"...).
>
> [...]
>
> The Symphony code is like everything else in this respect: all
> Symphony code that OpenOffice will choose
Am Montag, den 04.02.2013, 13:34 +0100 schrieb Michael Stahl:
> how exactly does LibreOffice "depend" on OpenOffice, and what do you
> mean by "OpenOffice" in this context?
As I understood the discussion at Linux Day last year the LibreOffice
rebase is not only about changing Licence headers but s
> Actually, the feedback I got at FOSDEM was to focus on packaging trunk for
> the time being.
>
> But indeed, the biggest effort is on packaging in a way that it is
> satisfactory for everybody, and for this first step it doesn't really make
> a technical difference whether we use 3.4.1, a recent
Martin Sourada wrote:
That's mostly how I understand the proposal. The goal for F19 is to get
it in and solve (potential) conflicts. It should probably either drop
the mentions of 4.0 or clearly state that 4.0 is going
Actually, the feedback I got at FOSDEM was to focus on packaging trunk
for
Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:31:11 +
> James Hogarth wrote:
>> Might I suggest focusing on packaging 3.4.1 for rawhide and dealing
>> with the issues surrounding conflicts and if that gies well consider
>> the 4.0 release (or whatever lines up then) for F20?
> That's mostly ho
On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 07:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > = Features/ApacheOpenOffice =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
> >
> > Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti
> >
> > Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora.
>
> A b
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:31:11 +
James Hogarth wrote:
> Might I suggest focusing on packaging 3.4.1 for rawhide and dealing
> with the issues surrounding conflicts and if that gies well consider
> the 4.0 release (or whatever lines up then) for F20?
That's mostly how I understand the proposal. Th
Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
My issue with Apache OpenOffice can be seen on LWN:
https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/ [...]
The Apache Software Foundation releases code under the Apache license;
they are, indeed, rather firm on that point. The Symphony repository,
though [...]
It's an outdated article
On 30/01/13 05:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Given that OpenOffice and LibreOffice share a common history (and not
that far back), are there going to be any efforts made to allow them
to be parallel-installable on the system, or will they be
fully-fledged Conf
Apologies for the accidental send before...
On 4 February 2013 12:39, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>> * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify
>>> carrying
>>>2 packages doing essentially the same thing?
>>>
>>
>> They are indeed two productivi
On 4 February 2013 12:39, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> * What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify
>> carrying
>>2 packages doing essentially the same thing?
>>
>
> They are indeed two productivity suites, but they are evolving in
> different direct
On 04/02/13 13:59, Martin Sourada wrote:
> Also, going by your reasoning there would be no point in having
> Calligra either... Furthermore, technically LO is the fork ;-)
technically, both Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice are forks, since
neither of them:
a) are under the OpenOffice.org govern
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:35:43 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> PPS: Oh, and this:
> > 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 lea
On 02/03/2013 09:15 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
01.02.2013 00:17, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson 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
Kevin Kofler wrote:
* What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying
2 packages doing essentially the same thing?
They are indeed two productivity suites, but they are evolving in
different directions. There's a "Features" link in the proposal
https://fedoraproje
Andrea, all,
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
>> > My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice is a symlink in order to
>> > keep backwards maintainability. Personally I
On 04/02/13 01:37, Peter Boy wrote:
>
> By the way: As I learnt on Linux Day last year, LibreOffice still
> depends on OpenOffice and is in the process to rebase their code to
> OpenOffice 3.4 (or something alike). So I'm wondering about different
> set of features.
how exactly does LibreOffice
2013/2/4 Kevin Kofler
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > = Features/ApacheOpenOffice =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
> >
> > Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti
> >
> > Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora.
>
> A big -1 to this feature, and in fact
04.02.2013 10:47, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Features/ApacheOpenOffice =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti
Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora.
A big -1 to this feature, and in fact I'd urge
04.02.2013 11:38, Kevin Kofler wrote:
David Tardon wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice is a symlink in order to
keep backwards maintainability. Personally I say both pa
PPS: Oh, and this:
> 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.
is just not acceptable. Alternati
David Tardon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
>> > My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice is a symlink in order to
>> > keep backwards maintainability. Personally I say both packages drop it
>> > beca
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Features/ApacheOpenOffice =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
>
> Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti
>
> Add Apache OpenOffice, the free productivity suite, to Fedora.
A big -1 to this feature, and in fact I'd urge FESCo to veto that package
o
Matej Cepl wrote:
> We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to stop somebody from packaging
> whatever they want (if it satisfies Fedora packaging policy).
FESCo can explicitly veto a package or category of packages, see kernel
modules. Why would it not be possible to ban forks of LibreOffice by FE
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
> > My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice is a symlink in order to
> > keep backwards maintainability. Personally I say both packages drop it
> > because star office is s 1999.
Martin Sourada wrote:
> and supposedly AOO is rather popular, though I don't have any hard
> numbers, just a hearsay
Apache OpenOffice is popular because some people missed the LibreOffice
rename and don't realize they're actually using an inferior fork when they
download "OpenOffice".
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Because the current mysql maintainers are keeping it around for f19 as
> an option and others have expressed interest in taking over maintaining
> it.
Do we really have to do this? Having 2 conflicting packages which are drop-
in replacements of each other in the repository is
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
> My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice is a symlink in order to
> keep backwards maintainability. Personally I say both packages drop it
> because star office is s 1999. :)
There's more than just soffice:
$ rpm -ql libreoffice-core | grep bin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi 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 +01
On 3 February 2013 19:04, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> 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?
>
My understanding is that /usr/bin/soffice
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
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 14:20 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
>
>
> I think that's not the point, one of the two
Hi Martin,
Am Donnerstag, den 31.01.2013, 13:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Sourada:
> Also, since Apache took over OpenOffice.org and put it out of
> incubation, it seems the development has been progressing rather well
> and in a different direction than LibreOffice. While both started from
> the sam
01.02.2013 17:38, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2013-01-31, 22:07 GMT, Chris Adams wrote:
I'm not saying having both is a bad thing, but I would like to think
that there's some thought given to "does Fedora gain from having both",
since there is a cost involved.
We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to
01.02.2013 00:17, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson 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 i
Message -
> From: "Matej Cepl"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 8:38:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
>
> On 2013-01-31, 22:07 GMT, Chris Adams wrote:
> > I'm not saying having both is a b
On 2013-01-31, 22:07 GMT, Chris Adams wrote:
> I'm not saying having both is a bad thing, but I would like to think
> that there's some thought given to "does Fedora gain from having both",
> since there is a cost involved.
We don’t (unfortunately?) have policy to stop somebody from packaging
wha
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:41 +0100, Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:38:19 +0100
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada
> > >
> > > Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and u
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:38:19 +0100
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada
> >
> > Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many
> > people
> > that's what they end up w
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
>
>
> 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada
>
> Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many
> people
> that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go and
> have AOO
> installed by
2013/2/1 Martin Sourada
>
> Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many people
> that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go and have AOO
> installed by default, but available in repos in a state that does not
> conflict with LO (and other office suites *in official r
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:39:56PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 02:04 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >And it's the same situation as with MariaDB and MySQL. Fedora is going to
> >prefer MariaDB (FESCo stated it clearly yesterday) - so we should try to make
> >an effort to sup
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 21:17 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
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 packa
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:36:57 -0500
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Martin Sourada (martin.sour...@gmail.com) said:
> > > I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me.
> > > We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back
> > > Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between u
On 01/31/2013 08:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 21:17 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson 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 pr
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:06:17 +0100
Marina Latini wrote:
> Maybe a power user is able to understand the main differences between
> LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice but, what about newbie users?
If they can install their preferred suite on Windows why not on
GNU/Linux? People would be more confused
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> 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.
Putting on my mirror admin fedora, I would point out that OO is not a
Martin Sourada (martin.sour...@gmail.com) said:
> > I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me.
> > We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back
> > Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom
> > of choice.
> >
> The confusion is already the
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 21:17 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson 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 imag
> 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.
>
>
>
Regardless of that I'm not sure what it really brings to the table compared
to LibreOffice...
Looking at
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson 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 ima
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:02 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 31.01.2013 17:56, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Reindl Harald
> > wrote:
> >> Am 31.01.2013 17:43, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:37 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> >>> wrote:
>
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 04:03 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:49:11 +
> > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/31/2013 03:24 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >>> proposal: clearly state that fedora prefers mariadb?
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 us
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
