Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:41 +0100, Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:38:19 +0100 
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:34 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2013/2/1 Martin Sourada <martin.sourada at gmail.com>
> > >          
> > >         Yes, defaults needs to be sensible and usable and for many
> > >         people
> > >         that's what they end up with. I'm not saying we should go
> > > and have AOO
> > >         installed by default, but available in repos in a state that
> > >         does not
> > >         conflict with LO (and other office suites *in official
> > >         repos*) ;-) Think
> > >         about sysadmins, multi-user systems, ... Seeing a bug report
> > >         saying "My
> > >         LO Writer segfaults with this error while AOO is installed"
> > >         isn't
> > >         exactly helpful, but not having AOO isn't a solution. Hence
> > > I say OK to
> > >         adding AOO, as long as it wont conflict with LO both as
> > >         package and in
> > >         runtime.
> > >         
> > >         Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is
> > >         end-user GUI application, not a
> > >         library/daemon/sound-server/whatever
> > >         used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by
> > >         design
> > >         interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By
> > >         adding AOO
> > >         we're not breaking some third app, we might break LO and
> > >         that's exactly
> > >         what I consider critical not to do. Is it doable? Are there
> > >         people
> > >         willing and able to do that? If yes, sure, let them.
> > 
> > > +1 Martin, that's the point.
> > 
> > No that's completely not the point:
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/177803.html
> > 
> Have you actually read what I wrote and what I was reacting to? Or have
> I written it so bad to make it seem in conflict with what you linked?

I was arguing that you are trying to make a point that is not even on
the table, so there is no point discussing over it.

Since we all agree, let's move on :)

Pierre