On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Squall Lionheart wrote:

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

LibreOffice has recently proved to be a solid replacement for Oracle OpenOffice. I'm about to drop all Oracle OOo packages from our repos.

First my time is limited. I've asked so many times for help in the Office packaging area and nobody stepped in.

Then there's the poor distribution support Oracle spends on the distributions. They almost do not care about custom distribution builds and their interest. They break the build against system libs every now and then and it takes ages to contact the relevant devs to fix their bugs. Development is only driven by the profit interests of Oracle... You can put in here all the arguments the Document foundation has given at its birth.

So don't expect any efforts to fix bugs in Oracle packages anymore. As soon as they will break due to a .so name bump or something like this I'll remove all the packages from our repos if nobody else is willing to maintain them.

Any objections to add "replaces=('openoffice-base') " to the next LibO pkg?

-Andy

I am an OpenOffice user and as long as LibreOffice will provide the same (or similar) experience, I'm game for the change.  Not a big Oracle fan and if I can avoid their software on my computer, it would be preferred.

+1 I've been following LO development for a couple weeks now and it is really impressive. There is a *ton* of legacy code and stupid things getting removed because of how conservative openoffice development was.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

On 07.03.2011 18:45, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

LibreOffice has recently proved to be a solid replacement for Oracle OpenOffice. I'm about to drop all Oracle OOo packages from our repos.

First my time is limited. I've asked so many times for help in the Office packaging area and nobody stepped in.

Then there's the poor distribution support Oracle spends on the distributions. They almost do not care about custom distribution builds and their interest. They break the build against system libs every now and then and it takes ages to contact the relevant devs to fix their bugs. Development is only driven by the profit interests of Oracle... You can put in here all the arguments the Document foundation has given at its birth.

So don't expect any efforts to fix bugs in Oracle packages anymore. As soon as they will break due to a .so name bump or something like this I'll remove all the packages from our repos if nobody else is willing to maintain them.

Any objections to add "replaces=('openoffice-base') " to the next LibO pkg?

-Andy +1

Solid and pragmatic suggestion.

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.

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?

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 10:22 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:

2011/3/7 Ng Oon-Ee :

...

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?

You got it, unless someone is dedicated :P

Dedicated to the relatively-closed and more-constrained version of whats in the repos. Sure =) The distros have jumped fast, but I'm wondering about the Windows users of openoffice, seems to me none of them would try libreoffice just because its there (and frankly the politics of the thing just doesn't cut it with most users in that camp). Idle thoughts...

On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 01:33 +0100, Linas wrote:

Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

Dedicated to the relatively-closed and more-constrained version of whats in the repos. Sure =)

The distros have jumped fast, but I'm wondering about the Windows users of openoffice, seems to me none of them would try libreoffice just because its there (and frankly the politics of the thing just doesn't cut it with most users in that camp). Idle thoughts...

Their problem is that they don't have an upgrade path. Distros can (and should) show libreoffice-X.Y as updates to openoffice X.(Y-1) so the update can go smoothly. But Windows users don't have that.

I installed libreoffice on windows today at work. OpenOffice had warned me about a new version and only after it had downloaded and extracted everything and it opened the installer splash screen with the Oracle logo did I notice. I cancelled the install and went to libreoffice.org, but most users won't be aware of the issue and so will continue using the Oracle version.

The Oracle version continues to exist, and its highly unlikely oracle would generously offer their customers an easy update path to libreoffice. The distros are not under Oracle's control, so Linux users get what the distros choose to give them. Unfortunately, this probably means that a few years from now libreoffice will perhaps be very linux-centric.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Jude DaShiell wrote:

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?

I think naming the libreoffice packages libre-openoffice packages is just misleading. People should learn the new name.

2011/3/9 Jude DaShiell :

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.

Am Wed, 9 Mar 2011 03:29:18 -0500 (EST) schrieb Jude DaShiell :

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,

The office package is called LibreOffice by upstream and not Libri-OpenOffice or LibriOpenOffice. So it's obvious that the package in [extra] is called libreoffice. What the hell is libri-openoffice or libriopenoffice? Who the hell shall know what this package contains and which package he shall look for and install if he wants to install LibreOffice? OpenOffice is openoffice-base and LibreOffice is libreoffice. Very simple. And it's well known that LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice. And it's also well known why the fork happened and why LibreOffice was named LibreOffice. So there's really no need to change any package name. And regarding the replaces=('openoffice-base') in the libreoffice package, if someone really wants to maintain OpenOffice in AUR the package should be renamed to openoffice anyway. Heiko

I switched to LibreOffice as soon as it hit the repos and I don't miss a thing. Also, I don't think we should worry too much about users coming from Windows. Really, if they're here, they're not afraid of change. Drop it now!

You should know replacing Oracle OpenOffice also does the accessibility crowd that uses orca a huge favor too. The Libri OpenOffice packages work better with Orca in several versions and don't crash because orca is running on the systems.On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

On 07.03.2011 18:45, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

LibreOffice has recently proved to be a solid replacement for Oracle OpenOffice. I'm about to drop all Oracle OOo packages from our repos.

First my time is limited. I've asked so many times for help in the Office packaging area and nobody stepped in.

Then there's the poor distribution support Oracle spends on the distributions. They almost do not care about custom distribution builds and their interest. They break the build against system libs every now and then and it takes ages to contact the relevant devs to fix their bugs. Development is only driven by the profit interests of Oracle... You can put in here all the arguments the Document foundation has given at its birth.

So don't expect any efforts to fix bugs in Oracle packages anymore. As soon as they will break due to a .so name bump or something like this I'll remove all the packages from our repos if nobody else is willing to maintain them.

Any objections to add "replaces=('openoffice-base') " to the next LibO pkg?

-Andy +1

Solid and pragmatic suggestion.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:59:20AM +0100, Ondřej Kučera wrote:

Hello,

On 7.3.2011 18:45, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

LibreOffice has recently proved to be a solid replacement for Oracle OpenOffice. I'm about to drop all Oracle OOo packages from our repos.

I have a small concern. I regularly need to do a batch conversion of ODS files to CSV. For a long time I've been using JODConverter [1] to do so. However, with (Arch Linux's) LibreOffice it doesn't seem to work. I've found users claiming that JODConverter works with LibreOffice for them [2] (they don't mention their distribution though), I've also found an open bug report about connecting to LibreOffice [3] but I don't think it applies here.

Anyway this is the error I'm getting: java.net.ConnectException: connection failed: 'socket,host=127.0.0.1,port=2002,tcpNoDelay=1'; java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused With openoffice-base everything works fine. I've tried to look at PKGBUILDs of both packages to see if there isn't a visible difference in configure options that might be a culprit but the PKGBUILDs are a bit too complicated for me to understand them well.

Is there anyone who would be able to help me make this work? I'd really appreciate it, this is the last reason that forces me to use Oracle's OpenOffice.

I'd guess that LibreOffice is probably just listening at the wrong port. Did you check [1]? Looks kinda related. [1] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=110406