F20 Self Contained Change: Apache OpenOffice

[James Hogarth]

>
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0, due in the last decade of July 2013, is a major
update.
> The two new versions (3.4.0 and 3.4.1) released in 2012 under the Apache
> guidance totalled 60 million downloads so far, not counting mirrors.
>

This should probably be fixed to due at the end of July 2013 or something
similar.

> Packaging is the main issue here. The default OpenOffice build process
produces
> RPM packages, but there are major changes to be done to obtain a set of
RPM
> packages and matching SRPMs suitable for inclusion in Fedora.
>
> Version 4.0 produces packages based on the current product name: this
allows
> to avoid name clashes with older versions of OpenOffice.
>
> The OpenOffice sources have been updated to allow a clean build with the
default
> tools shipped with Fedora 19.
>

Has it been built cl cleanly in rawhide and koji yet? It'd be nice to
include the package review bugzilla ticket for a 'new' package too...

> The change is isolated, except some possible packaging overlap with
LibreOffice,

Has this been actually resolved with the LO maintainers yet? I recall
fairly well the previous discussion but I don't think it was actually
resolved...

>
> Other developers:
> This issue was widely discussed for Fedora 19 too (the feature was then
> postponed to Fedora 20 since OpenOffice 4.0 was rescheduled to be
released after
> Fedora 19).
>

F20 branch is provisionally august 6th... Last time round it wasn't just
the GA date of AOO that was a concern but also any knock on effect in LO as
I recall... Are the timelines for package review and so on saner this time?

> The /usr/bin/soffice and /usr/bin/unopkg executables/symlinks are still a
> problem since (in the Fedora packages) they would conflict between
LibreOffice
> and Apache OpenOffice: it is recommended to fix it in the LibreOffice
packages too.

Have the LO maintainers agreed on this yet?

> upstream LibreOffice packages do not rely on a "soffice" symlink.
>

As I recall the concern ended up not being LO itself but third party
scripts relying on soffice and breaking those... In addition if behaviour
of the two 'owners' of soffice changes when it is called then what should
the accepted consequence be?

> Anyway, some coordination will be needed, as already envisaged by FESCo
for
> Fedora 19, to ensure a smooth user experience.

Like last time round there are s specific areas that still concern me...
Which would have been much relieved if work had been done since last time
round in rawhide to resolve those issues... Are any issues likely to
versions prior to branch?

Personally I think the LO maintainers need to weigh in and if there are any
concerns from that direction push back to F21 with work done on rawhide
after branch...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130717/c6f15e3c/attachment.html>