Am Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:16:23 + (UTC)
schrieb karl :
> The version in extra is the libreoffice alpha. That version isn't
> compatible to the libreoffice language packs. In the AUR is
> libreoffice-bin, it's the libreoffice beta and compatible to the also
> provided language packs of libre offic
On 13:49 Wed 20 Oct , Allan McRae wrote:
> On 20/10/10 23:47, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I think
> >LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it in AUR or
> >[community].
>
> Wow... that was fast:
>
> > pacman -Si libre
Am Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:50:53 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae :
> On 20/10/10 23:47, Heiko Baums wrote:
> > So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I
> > think LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it
> > in AUR or [community].
>
> Wow... that was fast:
>
> >
On 20/10/10 23:47, Heiko Baums wrote:
So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I think
LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it in AUR or
[community].
Wow... that was fast:
> pacman -Si libreoffice
Repository : extra
Name : libreoffice
Ve
Am Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:19:26 +0300
schrieb Ionuț Bîru :
> somebody already uploaded a new build, libreoffice-new. the name is
> kinda stupid and it makes me want to delete it.
I'd second this. It also seems to be a duplicate to libreoffice-bin.
And libreoffice-build should be deleted, too, renam
On 10/14/2010 02:10 PM, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 10:24, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR?
Who can explain?
Hello,
not under that name. If you do not compile from sou
Am 14.10.2010 10:24, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
>> Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
>>> Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR?
>>> Who can explain?
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> not under that name. If you do not compile from sources, use libreoffice-bin.
>>
> Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
> > Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR?
> > Who can explain?
>
> Hello,
>
> not under that name. If you do not compile from sources, use libreoffice-bin.
>
> -beta was my first choice, but -bin is imho better.
Is li
Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
> Hi all!
>
>> Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
>>> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the
> .
Hi all!
> Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
> >> Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> >>> I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the
...
> >>> I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be
Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
>> Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
>>> I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the
>>> last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old
>>> lib
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
> Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> > I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the
> > last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old
> > libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my sear
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the
> last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old
> libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I
> think its been reuploaded). Obviously, i
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the
last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old
libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I
think its been reuploaded). Obviously, its exactly the same.
I wonder what the point is
14 matches
Mail list logo
