Re: [dev] Where our products install to

Stephan Bergmann wrote: The planned new (OOo 3.0) structures are as follows: On Unix (Linux, Solaris): - The URE product still by default will install to /opt/openoffice.org/ure (but only the /opt prefix is relocatable). - The OOo product by default will install its three layers into -- /opt/o

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

Hi all, I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this is why I top post. Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I remember you that we didn't have the JCA at the beginning of the pr

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote: > The project simply don't need people like you who has probably never > contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind of useless > discussion. Grief it's a dangerous precedent to start suggesting that people who cont

[dev] Removing external header guards

Hi fellow devs, kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove external header guards (that #ifndef STUFF #include #endif ugliness). A bit more background: http://blog.thebehrens.net/2008/02/05/obsolete-external-header-guards/ Ideally, we'd want to land this in HEAD before

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

Allen Pulsifer wrote: All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn't change. This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get

Re: [dev] Where our products install to

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:05 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > I think that the best solution would be to get rid of share/dict/ooo and look > for the dictionaries into a common place, for example /usr/share/myspell. > > It would be nice get rid of share/dict/ooo/dictionary.lst. The dictionaries > ha

RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

> >> All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave > the project > >> and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the > >> situation doesn't change. This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free d

RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

> I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and > product, so please everyone lets Allen do it... That would be great. As soon as the project is ready to accept LGPL contributions, then we can make that happen. -

Re: [dev] Where our products install to

On Friday 08 February 2008, Oliver Braun wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > Stephan Bergmann wrote: > > The planned new (OOo 3.0) structures are as follows: > > > > On Unix (Linux, Solaris): > > - The URE product still by default will install to > > /opt/openoffice.org/ure (but only the /opt prefix is reloca

Re: [dev] Where our products install to

Hi Stephan, Stephan Bergmann wrote: The planned new (OOo 3.0) structures are as follows: On Unix (Linux, Solaris): - The URE product still by default will install to /opt/openoffice.org/ure (but only the /opt prefix is relocatable). - The OOo product by default will install its three layers i

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Juergen, I really did not want to step into this thread, but: On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote: All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. "You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that." Please emigrate to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

Hi Mathias, On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:05 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: > I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-) Good 'oh :-) personally I think the discussion is helpful. Jurgen is right, of course, that we discussed this 3 months ago, and that there has bee

Re: [dev] Where our products install to

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 12:23 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > Input, anyone? All seems very reasonable, firefox and other similar xul using apps sitting up on top of a common xulrunner comes to mind as a precedent. I'm still kind of interesting in figuring out if splitting the build to make build

[dev] Where our products install to

Hi all, With the advent of the newly structured three layer OOo 3 (see ), the question arises into what directory structure the various parts of the products shall be installed. The old (OOo 2.4) structures were as

Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?

Hi Juergen, I really did not want to step into this thread, but: On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote: > All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and > should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation > doesn't change. Sorry,