incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Madden <>
Subject Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:27:48 GMT
2012/1/4 Jürgen Schmidt <>:
> On 1/4/12 9:49 AM, Greg Madden wrote:
>> On 1/2/12 9:57 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:45:01PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>> Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would have
>>>>>>> build for
>>>>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system libraries.
This is
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the future...
>>>>>> I doubt this is going to happen. linux distros have switched to LO,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I guess Canonical, RedHat, Suse, ..., have interest in building a
>>>>>> brand,
>>>>>> so you cannot expect their interest in supporting packaging and
>>>>>> distributing
>>>>>> AOO; in conclusion, AOO relies on a "universal" Linux package.
>>>>> I expect that some Linux-based distributions will continue shipping
>>>>> LibreOffice by default (or what they call LibreOffice; in most cases
>>>>> this was simply a name change, since they were actually distributing
>>>>> ooo-build, closer to LibreOffice than to but
>>>>> different from both, under the name "" and later under
>>>>> the name "LibreOffice"; I think they are progressively aligning with
>>>>> LibreOffice now, which is good since users were often confused by
>>>>> customizations).
>>>>> But there is no reason to think that Apache OpenOffice will be kept
>>>>> out of the official repositories; most distributions already offer a
>>>>> dozen browsers and half a dozen office programs, so it is surely
>>>>> possible to get Apache OpenOffice in the most common distributions.
>>>> packaging a browser cannot be compared to packaging AOO. What I meant is
>>>> that you can not expect RedHat, Canonical, Suse, etc to pay resources to
>>>> package AOO. I guess (= I never packaged OOo myself, thought I have
>>>> packaged some trivial stuff for Fedora) packaging AOO will require
>>>> a very experienced packager.
>>>> you are right and the only chance I see is that users ask for it. To
>>>> make this happen we have to deliver a good product that users want and
>>>> that they would prefer over a pre-installed LibreOffice. Especially when
>>>> it comes to commercial usage in companies this can be a key factor to
>>> convince the distros to provide AOO as well.
>>>> Juergen
>> New to gmail for lists, hope this is clear.
>> I use Debian, it has switched to LO, previously it was Go-Office,(
>> Novell)already forking from pure OO.
>> I have strong differences with how the LO devs are 'enhancing' the
>> product. They have created at least one new feature that breaks
>> backwards compatibility with previous versions of OO.
>> Table>border/line styles
>> I have a 9 year archive of business reports that would need to be
>> edited to be usable.
>>,&  42750.
>> I have downloaded ver 3.4 from
>> These work with my archived reports,
>> Not sure how the code flows from one project to the other, my hope is
>> that OO does not duplicate what LO is doing.
>>Greg Madden
> i can say for sure that we don't use the work of LibreOffice. If we would
> wanted to do that we simply could not because of the license.
> Well we would be of course interested in some cleanup work, bug fixes or
> improvements they have done but we can't use it. So we definitely will have
> to duplicate some work in the future which is the drawback of the whole
> license story :-(
> Juergen

I sounded a bit negative, frustrated really. LO is doing some fine work.

A key point, improvements   are not improvements if they break the
user experience,


View raw message