Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

[ fullquoting for discuss@dfs sake. forgot the CC. Not that it matters
much, but anyways. ]


On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:13:43PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
It is a good idea to track changes, but it is probably a questionable
practice to make changes. I expected LibreOffice to be consistent across

Nonsense. This is OSS.

it). Are there compelling reasons why distributions should ship versions
of LibreOffice that have significant changes with respect to the
"official" version?

Define significant changes? Does ripping off the Mozilla address book
support (implicitely, because using system-mozilla) count as that? Would
you prefer Linux distros having a obsolete, patched and insecure Mozilla
copy there? No, not acceptable.

The experience, and the first distribution-specific
LibreOffice bugs like

Wow. I don't think Petr added a patch here, so it might just be system
differences? Petr, correct me if I am wrong.

Besides that, distros will have to continue libreoffice-build, which does
still contain patches. (Removing those would be a big regression about
what we ship right now)

make me think that fragmentation, while of course allowed by the
license, should be discouraged when it comes to functionality; I'm not
questioning desktop integration or branding, but I'd like to know why
distributions feel they have to make changes to functionality...

Because bugs should be fixed ASAP, not when you think one wants to release.
What if Debian didn't backport important fixes to it's 3.2.1 from 3.3 or so?
Should we release wiith known important bugs in a stable release. Living 2
years with it? No. You have to care about quality.

Besides that, some distro-specific bugs are not by feature patches, but just
because of other bugs, Like bugs in system-libs, new version of systen lib
breaking XYZ (e.g. the ) wrapping issue, need to find out the bugnr caused
by changes in the Unicode Standard and ICU 4.4), build issues etc. Those is what I meant here.

you can't foresee and neither does documenting every change help here.

Get some clue. And don't speak about this if you don't, kthxbye. Noone
does this intentionally.

Sorry, I apologize for the first two sentences of this. But I am getting
annoyed by those senseless discussions. Should we repeat the errors
Oracle did again?



Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.