On 17/07/2013 James Hogarth wrote:
Apache OpenOffice 4.0, due in the last decade of July 2013 ...
This should probably be fixed to due at the end of July 2013 or
something similar.
No problem. OpenOffice 4 is already on mirrors and will be announced in
a couple of days, so I've put the
On 19/07/2013 Daniel Veillard wrote:
One of my specific request therew is make sure that they link to the system
libraries instead of relying on the embedded version used e.g. for
Windows build. Very specifically make sure libxml2 etc... is not
provided by static version inside but uses the
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:55:55PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
Since this has been approved I'm curious as to the method by which the
non-conflict with LO is to be achieved...
We've looked at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EnvironmentModules under FESCo's
On 05/02/2013 James Hogarth wrote:
Let's take a look at a similar (although of course not identical)
situation [...] the MariaDB packaging review request.
There are some critical differences here. Especially, if I understood
correctly the discussion we had at FOSDEM, the fact that OpenOffice
On 06/02/2013 David Tardon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:36:36AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
As Stephan wrote, soffice is the main problem (and I wonder if
unopkg is in the same situation or is not problematic).
unopkg is in the same situation, of course.
Thanks. I edited the proposal
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
nobody will ever invoke openoffice.org if he wants to
run libreoffice [...] by pure
common sense and not even taking trademarks into account.
My understanding is that trademarks don't protect functional interfaces,
so in the absence of legal advice
Kevin Kofler wrote:
* What benefit does this package have over LibreOffice, to justify carrying
2 packages doing essentially the same thing?
They are indeed two productivity suites, but they are evolving in
different directions. There's a Features link in the proposal
Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
My issue with Apache OpenOffice can be seen on LWN:
https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/ [...]
The Apache Software Foundation releases code under the Apache license;
they are, indeed, rather firm on that point. The Symphony repository,
though [...]
It's an outdated article
Martin Sourada wrote:
That's mostly how I understand the proposal. The goal for F19 is to get
it in and solve (potential) conflicts. It should probably either drop
the mentions of 4.0 or clearly state that 4.0 is going
Actually, the feedback I got at FOSDEM was to focus on packaging trunk
for
On 30/01/2013 Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Features/ApacheOpenOffice =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
Feature owner(s): Andrea Pescetti
Thank you everybody for your feedback so far. It has now been
incorporated in the wiki page:
- Tentative release date for OpenOffice 4
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 21:17 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
The proposal explicitly says that it doesn't envisage including OO on
any images or in any default install configurations, simply adding it as
an
11 matches
Mail list logo
