<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 February 2013 12:33, Stephan Bergmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sbergman@redhat.com" target="_blank">sbergman@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 02/06/2013 02:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
About the "soffice" alias, it still breaks parallel installation in F18<br>
(just tried, the desktop integration from OpenOffice conflicts with<br>
libreoffice-core). It seems that the upstream LibreOffice packages no<br>
longer use the "soffice" alias (at least, the desktop integration only<br>
installs "libreoffice3.6"),<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Yeah, looks like <<a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b1cf810a8e7342ad5d518528fd58266daf6e90ec" target="_blank">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/<u></u>libreoffice/core/commit/?id=<u></u>b1cf810a8e7342ad5d518528fd5826<u></u>6daf6e90ec</a>> "LibreOffice branding: make desktop integration work (fix2)" dropped the /usr/bin/soffice symlink from the upstream LO packages, for reasons that escape me---maybe it was just ignorance or an oversight.<div class="im">
<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Whether it was dropped upstream or not (you sure on current LO not having that?) we're talking about Fedora's packaging here and the implication on the changes of behaviour to Fedora users...</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Just checked my system:</div><div style><br></div><div style> [me@system ~]$ which soffice</div><div>/usr/bin/soffice</div><div>[me@system ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/soffice </div><div>libreoffice-core-3.6.3.2-8.fc18.x86_64</div>
<div><br></div><div style>That commit date was back in 2010 and this was a fresh F18 install and not an upgrade as well...</div><div style><br></div><div style>I just grabbed the SRPM for 4.0 from rawhide as well to check and the spec file includes %{_bindir}/soffice</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>So there's an expectation of compatibility that exists right now - Stephen what's your thoughts on this going forwards?</div><div style><br></div><div style>As for the 'true owner' of oowriter and so on - well both AOO and LO can be considered forks of the original <a href="http://oo.org">oo.org</a> at this point given their histories and LO is already present...</div>
</div></div></div>