So as long as the libriopenoffice is in (o) other packages having a need for some flavor of openoffice depending on arch-linux dependencies policy would take the official packages first. If that's the case such naming conventions would be unnecessary.On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, ??? wrote:
2011/3/9 Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@shellworld.net>:
For such a transition, I think it will be helpful for everybody using arch-linux to name aall libri-openoffice packages libri-openoffice-supported and all oracle-openoffice packages oracle-openoffice-unsupported. Debian at any rate has a playground area where unsupported packages go within its repositories as well. That might get the message across to even windows users. Certainly if I do a new installation of arch-linux I'd want libri-openoffice-supported on my system as opposed to anything else.On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 22:00 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
just an fyi, openoffice itself is *huge* and now that it is going to be dropped to the aur, it will most likely lose all audience because of how long it takes to compile from source. + libreoffice is just a better version of openoffice imo, so there should really be no one that uses it.
People who want openoffice will probably just use the -bin packages?
For Arch Linux,the AUR Repo is UNSUPPORTED?and Offical Repo is always supported,so i think it is unnecessary to name like that.