Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#15128 - [go-openoffice] path
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Andrej Gelenberg (nikel) - Tuesday, 16 June 2009, 12:28 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 06:41 GMT
Opened by Andrej Gelenberg (nikel) - Tuesday, 16 June 2009, 12:28 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 06:41 GMT
|
Detailsgo-openoffice have path /usr/lib/go-openoffice* and have conflict with openoffice-base. It must have the same paths (and better without version-number in it). It will make possible to make extension-packages (such writer2latex or so).
|
This task depends upon
the new go-oo pkg is a replacement and is built to conflict with the vanilla pkg. that's why it has the conflict tag in the PKGBUILD.
For reference see last comment in http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=14180.
I have compiled it for me, but PKGBUILD is not very portable, i guess.
Extension paths are different now for go-openoffice and openoffice-base.
And I see no need to take care about packaging extensions. We ship a few inside the base OOo packages and more can be easily installed through the extension manager. Packages for precompiled extensions don't make much sense to me. To install a .oxt file is much faster than to build a pkg via abs.
And though go-oo is a replacement for vanilla OOo there's no need to keep any compatibility. It's entended to stay/become a true fork.