On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
> > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] > > > I have no problem to make this more public. If LO want to be > > independent > > they should not use our package names, binary names etc. > > in fact, so you're absolutely right. I am a normal Linux user and the > situation on Linux is extremely confusing. > > But what can we do? I think here are problems that need to be resolved > legally. > > > Greetings, > Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > One of the "confusing" issues comes from LO's continued use of "soffice" as the launchpad binary. We've been down this road before to no avail. See, for example -- http://www.libreoffice.org/developers/ On SOME distros who handle this a little better/politely, the LO binary has been renamed to "libreoffice", and a symlink from "soffice" to libreoffice (/usr/bin/libreoffice --a custom packaging ) is supplied which can easily be removed. bottom line -- even if we are successful in getting AOO into some repositories, how to deal with this naming clash. Maybe someone who has downloaded LO packages directly from their site can provide more information. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time, for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect." -- James Mason
