openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ariel Constenla-Haile <>
Subject Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:57:30 GMT
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, J├╝rgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>Normally the office would come via the distro and would have been 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.

Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

View raw message