[aur-general] Libreoffice in AUR
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I think its been reuploaded). Obviously, its exactly the same. I wonder what the point is of having libreoffice-new though. It's basically just extracting of some rpms, as compared to the libreoffice from [testing]. I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer to email the author. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41792 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41793
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I think its been reuploaded). Obviously, its exactly the same.
I wonder what the point is of having libreoffice-new though. It's basically just extracting of some rpms, as compared to the libreoffice from [testing].
I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer to email the author.
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41792 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41793
Hello, I deleted libreoffice again because of the name clash. But in the past we allowed binary versions or beta versions of some projects, so why not doing here? I would not recommend its usage, but let people decide. Regards Stefan
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I think its been reuploaded). Obviously, its exactly the same.
I wonder what the point is of having libreoffice-new though. It's basically just extracting of some rpms, as compared to the libreoffice from [testing].
I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer to email the author.
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41792 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41793
Hello,
I deleted libreoffice again because of the name clash. But in the past we allowed binary versions or beta versions of some projects, so why not doing here?
I would not recommend its usage, but let people decide.
Regards Stefan
I was just thinking the name is misleading, and -bin is a better name.
Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I think its been reuploaded). Obviously, its exactly the same.
I wonder what the point is of having libreoffice-new though. It's basically just extracting of some rpms, as compared to the libreoffice from [testing].
I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer to email the author.
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41792 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41793
Hello,
I deleted libreoffice again because of the name clash. But in the past we allowed binary versions or beta versions of some projects, so why not doing here?
I would not recommend its usage, but let people decide.
Regards Stefan
I was just thinking the name is misleading, and -bin is a better name.
Yes this is a discussable point.
Hi all!
Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the ... I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer to email the author. ...
... I would not recommend its usage, but let people decide. ...
I was just thinking the name is misleading, and -bin is a better name. ... Yes this is a discussable point.
Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR? Who can explain? -- Less QRM more DX Vitaliy Berdinskikh -- реклама ----------------------------------------------------------- Три новые линейки хостинг-планов - всё что нужно Вашему сайту! 6 месяцев хостинга бесплатно и домен в подарок. http://Hvosting.ua
Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Hi all!
Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the ... I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer to email the author. ...
... I would not recommend its usage, but let people decide. ...
I was just thinking the name is misleading, and -bin is a better name. ... Yes this is a discussable point.
Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR? Who can explain?
-- Less QRM more DX Vitaliy Berdinskikh
-- реклама ----------------------------------------------------------- Три новые линейки хостинг-планов - всё что нужно Вашему сайту! 6 месяцев хостинга бесплатно и домен в подарок. http://Hvosting.ua
Hello, not under that name. If you do not compile from sources, use libreoffice-bin. -beta was my first choice, but -bin is imho better. Regards Stefan
Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR? Who can explain?
Hello,
not under that name. If you do not compile from sources, use libreoffice-bin.
-beta was my first choice, but -bin is imho better.
Is libreoffice-base-bin OK? Or libreoffice-bin? -- реклама ----------------------------------------------------------- Три новые линейки хостинг-планов - всё что нужно Вашему сайту! 6 месяцев хостинга бесплатно и домен в подарок. http://Hvosting.ua
Am 14.10.2010 10:24, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR? Who can explain?
Hello,
not under that name. If you do not compile from sources, use libreoffice-bin.
-beta was my first choice, but -bin is imho better.
Is libreoffice-base-bin OK? Or libreoffice-bin?
-- реклама ----------------------------------------------------------- Три новые линейки хостинг-планов - всё что нужно Вашему сайту! 6 месяцев хостинга бесплатно и домен в подарок. http://Hvosting.ua
I have no preference here.
On 10/14/2010 02:10 PM, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2010 10:24, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Am 14.10.2010 09:51, schrieb Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD:
Can I upload libreoffice (3.3.0-beta not 3.2.99) to AUR? Who can explain?
Hello,
not under that name. If you do not compile from sources, use libreoffice-bin.
-beta was my first choice, but -bin is imho better.
Is libreoffice-base-bin OK? Or libreoffice-bin?
-- реклама ----------------------------------------------------------- Три новые линейки хостинг-планов - всё что нужно Вашему сайту! 6 месяцев хостинга бесплатно и домен в подарок. http://Hvosting.ua
I have no preference here.
somebody already uploaded a new build, libreoffice-new. the name is kinda stupid and it makes me want to delete it. -- Ionuț
Am Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:19:26 +0300
schrieb Ionuț Bîru
somebody already uploaded a new build, libreoffice-new. the name is kinda stupid and it makes me want to delete it.
I'd second this. It also seems to be a duplicate to libreoffice-bin. And libreoffice-build should be deleted, too, renamed to libreoffice and updated to the latest beta. Btw., libreoffice-new is missing the "-beta" in $pkgver. Why I'm crossposting this to aur-general and arch-general is this article: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/OpenOffice-Council-asks-LibreOffice-m... It's conceivable that OpenOffice and LibreOffice won't cooperate and will be developed independently from each other. So they most likely will differ and provide different features rather soon. So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I think LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it in AUR or [community]. Nevertheless regardless whether LibreOffice is in AUR, [community] or [extra] there should be clean packages and naming schemes which comply with the packaging and naming schemes for OpenOffice. Ensuring this is another reason to put it officially to [extra]. Heiko
On 20/10/10 23:47, Heiko Baums wrote:
So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I think LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it in AUR or [community].
Wow... that was fast:
pacman -Si libreoffice Repository : extra Name : libreoffice Version : 3.2.99.2-1
Am Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:50:53 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae
On 20/10/10 23:47, Heiko Baums wrote:
So I'd like to see LibreOffice in [extra] besides OpenOffice. I think LibreOffice is or will soon be too important to just have it in AUR or [community].
Wow... that was fast:
pacman -Si libreoffice Repository : extra Name : libreoffice Version : 3.2.99.2-1
Do you mean my comment or the including to [extra] yesterday? Somehow I must have missed this. In the pacman -Ss resp. clyde -Ss output I've only seen the AUR packages. But then the AUR packages should probably be cleaned up. But isn't the version in [extra] out-of-date? From the PKGBUILD: _LOver=3.2.99.2 # = 3.3-alpha1 Latest version is 3.3.0-beta2. Or am I missing something again? And why does libreoffice conflict with openoffice-base? Is it a packaging or an upstream issue? Heiko
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Heiko Baums
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Stefan Husmann
-
Vitaliy Berdinskikh UR6LAD