Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:42:00PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
> What the proposal is meant to ensure is that Fedora 19 users will be
> able to install OpenOffice 4 from the official Fedora repositories
> and without experiencing any conflicts with other packages. It seems
> clear from the current discussion that some preparation work is
> needed, especially concerning the LibreOffice packaging, so this
> needs to be addressed before Fedora 19 is released.
> 
> If it helps to package 3.4.1 as an intermediate step, fine. This will
> still allow us to clarify issues and fix packaging conflicts. But we
> will then want to package 4.0 as soon as it is released as stable. I
> thought that the policy would forbid such upgrades but (again at
> FOSDEM) I got feedback that this is up to the packagers too. Anyway,
> if this plan accommodates concerns about packaging pre-release
> software, I could be OK with it.

Policy does exist that would highly discourage an update from 3.4.1 to 4.0
once Fedora 19 is released:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#All_other_updates

Packagers do have leeway here and, ironically, the less popular your package
is, the more you can get away with.  But I would say that given your goals,
the best version to ship would be a pre-release of 4.0 (or final if it is
out).

Depending on how stable the pre-release is on Fedora, you may want to modify
the release notes section of the Feature Page to reflect that it's a
technology preview.

> 
> Actually, I didn't see licenses or copyright notices in the spec
> file, just a changelog. Could someone clarify the licensing status of
> spec files? Are they just "convenience files" that anyone can freely
> modify?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files

However, if you're going to run that by a lawyer, we should talk to spot
first.  Fedora switched from the ICLA to the FPCA:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement?rd=Legal:FPCA

a while back.  I'm not certain if that section on spec file licensing links
to the ICLA on purpose or if it should have been updated to the FPCA.

(The differences between the two may be unimportant to what you want to do
but I felt I should highlight it just in case).

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130206/420cc62b/attachment.sig>