On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Guillermo Leira wrote:

If you run pacman -Ss libreoffice, you see that there seems to be a libreoffice group. But when you run pacman -S libreoffice, only libreoffice-common is installed...

i guess that's because libreoffice-common provides libreoffice. try pacman -S $(pacman -Sgq libreoffice)

Am 03.08.2011 09:24, schrieb Auguste Pop:

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Guillermo Leira wrote:

...

If you run pacman -Ss libreoffice, you see that there seems to be a libreoffice group. But when you run pacman -S libreoffice, only libreoffice-common is installed...

i guess that's because libreoffice-common provides libreoffice. try pacman -S $(pacman -Sgq libreoffice)

Yes, that shouldn't be. It's broken the way it is - either the group should be renamed, or the provides should be removed.

Am Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:51:06 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums :

Definitely provides should be removed. The software is called LibreOffice so pacman -S libreoffice is supposed to install the complete office suite.

And, btw., libreoffice-common is only a part of libreoffice. So it in fact doesn't provide the full office suite. Heiko

On 3 August 2011 14:06, Mauro Santos wrote:

My only (small) gripe is that libreoffice-gnome maybe should be called libreoffice-gtk.

As a user of xfce I was slightly puzzled but the naming saying gnome as it sort of implies that it is specific to gnome, however the description clarifies that it applies to any gtk dependent DE. Maybe the naming should be general and the description should state gnome,xfce and anything else gtk dependent that is officially supported by arch.

-- Mauro Santos

Makes sense to me, Gnome implies GTK3 to me anyway. -- Jason Steadman http://www.meyithi.com/ http://twitter.com/meyithi

Excerpts from Auguste Pop's message of 2011-08-03 15:12:21 +0200:

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:

...

On 03-08-2011 07:41, Hector Martinez-Seara wrote:

...

Hi, I'm aware that recently there has been some changes in libreoffice package. The problem is that yesterday I updated my system and surprisingly only libreoffice-common was updated. By that I mean that I mean that not base, writer, impress... were available after the update, they dissapered. Moreover, if I make "pacman -S libreoffice" only  "libreoffice-common" is targeted and there is no traces of libreoffice-calc,  libreoffice-base,  libreoffice-draw.... The thing is that there seems to be a container called libreoffice which it is suppose to contain all this basic packages but in my case only installs "libreoffice-common". What I'm doing wrong? I hope it is not expected that we install one by one the components we want. Thanks in advance, Hector

My only (small) gripe is that libreoffice-gnome maybe should be called libreoffice-gtk.

As a user of xfce I was slightly puzzled but the naming saying gnome as it sort of implies that it is specific to gnome, however the description clarifies that it applies to any gtk dependent DE. Maybe the naming should be general and the description should state gnome,xfce and anything else gtk dependent that is officially supported by arch.

-- Mauro Santos

and libreoffice-kde4 should be libreoffice-qt.

I'm not sure about this, it pulls in at least phonon, which is kde specific.

Excerpts from Auguste Pop's message of 2011-08-03 15:37:38 +0200:

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

Excerpts from Auguste Pop's message of 2011-08-03 15:12:21 +0200:

...

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:

...

On 03-08-2011 07:41, Hector Martinez-Seara wrote:

...

Hi, I'm aware that recently there has been some changes in libreoffice package. The problem is that yesterday I updated my system and surprisingly only libreoffice-common was updated. By that I mean that I mean that not base, writer, impress... were available after the update, they dissapered. Moreover, if I make "pacman -S libreoffice" only  "libreoffice-common" is targeted and there is no traces of libreoffice-calc,  libreoffice-base,  libreoffice-draw.... The thing is that there seems to be a container called libreoffice which it is suppose to contain all this basic packages but in my case only installs "libreoffice-common". What I'm doing wrong? I hope it is not expected that we install one by one the components we want. Thanks in advance, Hector

My only (small) gripe is that libreoffice-gnome maybe should be called libreoffice-gtk.

As a user of xfce I was slightly puzzled but the naming saying gnome as it sort of implies that it is specific to gnome, however the description clarifies that it applies to any gtk dependent DE. Maybe the naming should be general and the description should state gnome,xfce and anything else gtk dependent that is officially supported by arch.

-- Mauro Santos

and libreoffice-kde4 should be libreoffice-qt.

I'm not sure about this, it pulls in at least phonon, which is kde specific.

oh, i didn't install that. that was a blind guess. :-P

best regards,

I didn't go through with it either but I had a look at what it would pull. libreoffice-gnome pulls nothing on my system, no gconf, no other gnome dependencies. libreoffice-kde pulls phonon and a bunch of other kde dependencies. So I'd suggest: libreoffice-gnome -> libreoffice-gtk (version?) libreoffice-kde4 (leave it) It's not consistent but it reflects reality.

Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2011-08-03 23:31:51 +0200:

On 04/08/11 00:17, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

Excerpts from Auguste Pop's message of 2011-08-03 15:37:38 +0200:

...

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

Excerpts from Auguste Pop's message of 2011-08-03 15:12:21 +0200:

...

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:

...

On 03-08-2011 07:41, Hector Martinez-Seara wrote: > Hi, > I'm aware that recently there has been some changes in libreoffice > package. The problem is that yesterday I updated my system and > surprisingly only libreoffice-common was updated. By that I mean that > I mean that not base, writer, impress... were available after the > update, they dissapered. Moreover, if I make "pacman -S libreoffice" > only "libreoffice-common" is targeted and there is no traces of > libreoffice-calc, libreoffice-base, libreoffice-draw.... The thing > is that there seems to be a container called libreoffice which it is > suppose to contain all this basic packages but in my case only > installs "libreoffice-common". What I'm doing wrong? I hope it is not > expected that we install one by one the components we want. > Thanks in advance, > Hector

My only (small) gripe is that libreoffice-gnome maybe should be called libreoffice-gtk.

As a user of xfce I was slightly puzzled but the naming saying gnome as it sort of implies that it is specific to gnome, however the description clarifies that it applies to any gtk dependent DE. Maybe the naming should be general and the description should state gnome,xfce and anything else gtk dependent that is officially supported by arch.

-- Mauro Santos

and libreoffice-kde4 should be libreoffice-qt.

I'm not sure about this, it pulls in at least phonon, which is kde specific.

oh, i didn't install that. that was a blind guess. :-P

best regards,

I didn't go through with it either but I had a look at what it would pull. libreoffice-gnome pulls nothing on my system, no gconf, no other gnome dependencies. libreoffice-kde pulls phonon and a bunch of other kde dependencies.

So I'd suggest: libreoffice-gnome -> libreoffice-gtk (version?) libreoffice-kde4 (leave it)

It's not consistent but it reflects reality.

I'm fairly sure these are just following upstream naming so I doubt they will change.

Allan

It's not exactly easy to figure out what upstream uses in this case. The only hint I found so far is the gnome_list.txt in the PKGBUILD. I don't know whether the upstream name is very significant in this case.

Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2011-08-04 09:02:45 +0200:

On 4 August 2011 06:35, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

It's not exactly easy to figure out what upstream uses in this case. The only hint I found so far is the gnome_list.txt in the PKGBUILD. I don't know whether the upstream name is very significant in this case.

I think upstream is only keen on DE integration. That the gnome integration does not depend on gnome-specific stuff, just happens to be the case.

I'm just glad that it doesn't depend on gnome stuff and I'm someone who's annoyed when something suggests it's gnome but only requires gtk and even more so if something suggests it requires gtk but requires a whole bunch of gnome stuff. Same for qt/kde of course. I wish those descriptions were correct and thus meaningful in arch. In this specific case I don't think the upstream name matters much since I even have a hard time figuring out how upstream calls this part of LO. I don't know where the packager got the name from but it might well have been the ubuntu package for all I can figure out. I personally find a sane naming scheme in arch more important than consistency across distros (which would be pretty much the only reason to go with the 'wrong' name).

Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2011-08-04 12:13:45 +0200:

On 4 August 2011 17:35, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

In this specific case I don't think the upstream name matters much since I even have a hard time figuring out how upstream calls this part of LO. I don't know where the packager got the name from but it might well have been the ubuntu package for all I can figure out. I personally find a sane naming scheme in arch more important than consistency across distros (which would be pretty much the only reason to go with the 'wrong' name).

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Administration_Guide/...

Has 'GNOME' and 'KDE' sprawled all over.

Some wiki page, big deal. Doesn't mean we have to use gnome.

In this case, implying gtk is as misleading as implying gnome; it is no better. The office suite really does not look native at all, it just tries its best to be close to the 'desktop' (overall) _theme_ with icons and an appropriate file chooser. So technically, and ultimately, it is not appropriate to imply gtk since it does a horrible job with integrating to a widget system.

It uses the theme, icons and file chooser, that's already a lot for a thing that's about looks.

In other cases, where the respective gtk and qt packages override for say, a UI, then the gtk implication rather than gnome would be appropriate.

So how does gnome make any more sense? It's not using a gnome UI either.

It's not always possible to make the non-DE users happy. In fact, non-DE users have to adapt to the latest conventions and most importantly, adapt to the norm. It is up to us to see whether an integration works satisfactorily and without all the bulk, rather than demand it. Expecting '-gnome' or '-kde' to always come with their desktop-specific dependencies is not a proper expectation, for it is not always "integration" in the correct, or full, sense.

I have no idea what you're talking about in this paragraph.

Many applications claiming 'gtk' as part of its name or description actually depend on gnome libraries. It's a fragmentation we have to deal with, because it's a popular practice, and thus, the norm.

No, this is just wrong and reinforcing bad practice.

On 4 August 2011 18:30, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

Some wiki page, big deal. Doesn't mean we have to use gnome.

Nope. Does not. In the same manner, there is also nothing about gtk.

It uses the theme, icons and file chooser, that's already a lot for a thing that's about looks.

It's really just a small part. If you take a look at the kde integration, it's nowhere near how a kde or qt app looks like. So implying qt rather than kde doesn't make things any better.

So how does gnome make any more sense? It's not using a gnome UI either.

It makes sense because 'gtk' does not equate to 'desktop', while 'gnome' does. You'd have to rewrite the program to have it integrate with either gtk or qt in full. This is why: Integration with the desktop rather than the widget style does not carry a strong obligation, because you can smack on some icons and you can call it "integration".

No, this is just wrong and reinforcing bad practice.

Indeed, but nobody is reinforcing anything. To you it may be wrong, but to others it may not. In this case it's just a simple matter of what looks OK and what is enough. Renaming 'gnome' to 'gtk' will _not_ make things any better, aside from serving the personal satisfaction of some. In short, there is no need to be anal. If you feel strongly about this, you can file a Feature Request :) -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10