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 <martin.sour...@gmail.com> > > > > > > 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 > > > repos*) ;-) Think > > > about sysadmins, multi-user systems, ... Seeing a bug report > > > saying "My > > > LO Writer segfaults with this error while AOO is installed" > > > isn't > > > exactly helpful, but not having AOO isn't a solution. Hence > > > I say OK to > > > adding AOO, as long as it wont conflict with LO both as > > > package and in > > > runtime. > > > > > > 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 app, we might break LO and > > > that's exactly > > > what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there > > > people > > > willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them. > > > > > +1 Martin, that's the point. > > > > No that's completely not the point: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/177803.html > > > Have you actually read what I wrote and what I was reacting to? Or have > I written it so bad to make it seem in conflict with what you linked?
I was arguing that you are trying to make a point that is not even on the table, so there is no point discussing over it. Since we all agree, let's move on :) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
