Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Marc Paré <> wrote:

Would you then have any idea if this would cause a lot of devoted dev t


part-time, full-time attention. Would LibO then have to have a dedicate


in charge of this?


I doubt it would require a full-time developer, since changes would
only need to be made when a new version of openoffice or, maybe, when
a new version of a distribution is released, so probably 4 or 5 times
a year.  I don't know about deb files, but spec files for rpms would
only require the version number be changed and, if there are changes
to the file names in output, some changes to the list of files.  We
are probably talking a few hundred lines of code for the entire spec
file, and only between 1 and maybe a few dozen would have to be
changed for a openoffice update, while only at most 5 or so would
likely need to be changed for a new distribution release (ideally none
would have to be changed in that case).

However, it may still be too much work given the benefit.
Distributions will normally handle the packaging themselves anyway, so
I am not exactly clear on what benefit there would be in duplicating
this effort.  Really the main benefit I can see is not to users
directly, it is making sure the software builds on common Linux
distributions without distributions having to make their own
modifications.  So it may be worthwhile from a debugging perspective
alone, and if the packages are going to be built then publishing them
would be no added effort.


Perhaps a benefit would be a coordinated unveiling of the product on a gi
date. Rather than having to rely on other distros to update their packagi
DocumentFoundation would then be the distributor of the different package

Updates and critical bug fixes could then be distributed quicker.


But it is important to keep in mind the distributions' own release
policies.  Many distributions do not allow non-security-related
updates over the course of a single release cycle.  This allows them
to thoroughly test a given combination of software.  Having the
distribution release one set of packages and having the foundation
release another set may be confusing to users and will may prove to be
a major annoyance to distributions which work hard to provide a
coherent set of packages.

I am not saying that such packages should not be released, my point is
merely that we need to be mindful of the needs and limitations of the
distribution maintainers, and not make life any more difficult for
them than is absolutely necessary.  Just pushing out packages and
telling users to download them is not a good strategy, in fact it is a
really good way to turn distributions against you.  More thought, and
a lot of discussion with those maintaining the distributions, will be
needed in order to guarantee a mutually beneficial approach.  It may
not be possible to completely please every party, but unilaterally
bypassing the distributions entirely is not a good idea in my opinion.

To unsubscribe, e-mail to
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
List archives are available at


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.