In news:itrfh0$4be$1...@dough.gmane.org, NoOp <gl...@sbcglobal.net> typed: > On 06/18/2011 02:52 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: >> Hi .., >> >> aqualung wrote (18-06-11 06:12) >>> It would be nice to have the option of keeping OOo, for >>> the odd case when something that works in it is broken >>> in LibreOffice, or when you need OOo installed in order >>> to provide help to another user who has OOo but not >>> LibO. >> >> I think that is a fair idea. >> >>> The way to do this, I guess, would be to add an option >>> in LibO's installation, e.g.: >> >> Thanks for your text. Too me, it looks good, though I am >> not interested myself at all, since I use parallel >> installation all the time ;-) Could be handy for you too: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel > > This is the issue that I brought up in December on the LO > dev list: > <http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4130> > [Change executable/sh names] > Here we are on 3.4.rc1 and no further down the line. > You'll need to expand some of the posts in that thread to > see that I > actually tested by changing the executables names & that > works. Sample: > <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4360> > > So the issue *still* remains that LO uses OOo .exe names. > Does the same > in Linux as well: > $ ls /opt/libreoffice3.4/program > about.png oosplash.bin services.rdb soffice.bin > unopkg.bin > bootstraprc python setuprc sofficerc > versionrc > fundamentalrc redirectrc shell spadmin > intro.png sbase simpress swriter > kdefilepicker scalc smath unoinfo > libnpsoplugin.so sdraw soffice unopkg > > When will LO stand on their own and change these?
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. OOo and LO are now two different "companies" for want of a better word, and I've never heard of any coder wanting to use the same names for their code as another program does. Swriter etc. being common names was an eye opener I'd never thought of, but that same naming convention has been in place for a long time. I would think it falls on LO to do a search & destroy on said application names since they're the newest kids on the block. Maybe it needs to be Lwriter or something; anything that's unique and unambiguous. There should be NO common files, period, IMO, so that OOo and LO can do whatever they need to do. Just as AMI, MS, WP, et al can all live together and even be run simultaneiously, so should OOo and LO. Personally I don't care and I'm not sure how valid having to install both is since there are some workarounds that might suffice, but: OTOH, it does seem like they should install peacefully, whatever the actual reason is for the problems; it just makes sense. HTH, Twayne` -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org In case of problems unsubscribing, write to postmas...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
