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
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

go-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

Closed by  Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 06:41 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't fix
Comment by Andrej Gelenberg (nikel) - Tuesday, 16 June 2009, 12:29 GMT
same paths as openoffice-base
Comment by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Friday, 19 June 2009, 21:17 GMT
sorry. I don't get the point.

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.
Comment by Andrej Gelenberg (nikel) - Friday, 19 June 2009, 23:53 GMT
You can use when the same paths as openoffice-base. It will make it possible to make general extension-packages (it need some java-libs and install directory).

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.
Comment by Antonio Rojas (arojas) - Tuesday, 23 June 2009, 07:59 GMT
Not sure if it's related, but l10n packages don't work with go-ooo, because they are installed in /opt while go-ooo is in /usr/lib. Manually moving the files makes it work, so I agree both packages should install to the same path.
Comment by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 06:40 GMT
no. I won't put both packages to the same path. It's currently not possible to install vanilla OOo to /usr in a clean way.

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.

Loading...