Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice

[David Tardon]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:36:36AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:31 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >>On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:26:35PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> >>>$ rpm -ql libreoffice-core | grep bin/ | xargs ls -ld
> >>>-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 362 Dec  6 18:37 /usr/bin/libreoffice
> >>>-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  32 Dec  6 18:37 /usr/bin/ooffice
> >>>-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  39 Dec  6 18:37 /usr/bin/ooviewdoc
> >>>lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root  11 Jan  9 12:46 /usr/bin/openoffice.org ->  libreoffice
> >>>lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root  38 Jan  9 12:46 /usr/bin/soffice ->  /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/soffice
> >>>-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 360 Dec  6 18:37 /usr/bin/unopkg
> >>There is also /usr/bin/oowriter, oocalc, ooimpress, oodraw and oobase
> >>that belong to other libreoffice-* subpackages.
> >The feature page only discusses the soffice link; what does the
> >feature propose to do about the other conflicting files in /usr/bin?
> 
> 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.

> 
> I would find it just reasonable that openoffice.org and the oo*
> launchers are kept free for Apache OpenOffice. Using the aoo*
> convention for OpenOffice is not common: executables from other
> Apache projects are not prefixed with an "a" (i.e., Fedora doesn't
> have "ahttpd", "asvn" and so on).

That is not a technical argument, either. Apache OpenOffice is the
newcomer to the distribution, so IMHO it is your responsibility to
resolve any clashes with already present components (in this case by
renaming the executables or not installing them). It would not be the
first case of that in Fedora.

> LibreOffice modules could
> reasonably adopt the lo* convention to reflect the current naming.
> Anyway, this is common sense rather than a source of package
> conflict, so if there are technical arguments against this we can
> surely discuss further.

Sorry, but I do not want having to explain to users (and bug reporters)
why running ooffice (oowriter,...) on command line suddenly fails
because the executable does not exist.

D.