Re: Doing away with stlport for OOo 2.0

Hi, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > time to break compatibility anyway. Ideally this would be made the default > for Linux upstream and done by all distros (to preserve the illusion of binary > compatibility...). I'm not sure who to contact about this, but feel free to > forward this anywhere appropri

Bug#328140: openoffice.org: Changed document cannot be saved under some circumstances

Package: openoffice.org Version: 1.1.4-7 Severity: normal This is quite serious because it could cause data loss. But I'm not familiar with Debian directives to know whether it's considered "serious" for the purpose of reportbug: 1. Create a presentation document with a few sheets 2. Insert a

Re: Doing away with stlport for OOo 2.0

Hi, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK. So I think openoffice.org 2.0 is the correct time to abandon stlport. > The advantages are numerous: > * no patching around STLport build problems We don't use the internal copy so patching is the stlports maintainers work which he should do anyway regardless of

Doing away with stlport for OOo 2.0

OK. So I think openoffice.org 2.0 is the correct time to abandon stlport. The advantages are numerous: * no patching around STLport build problems * no Cartesian-product ABI issue with STLport versions vs. GCC versions * smaller disk and memory footprint * faster build OOo already works with GCC'