Ximian version of OO.o

contrasutra · 2003-10-31 20:18:01

I believe they've updated to the latest OpenOffice version, but added lots of cool tweaks and additions.

I was just wondering if Arch could use the Ximian version instead of the Vanilla version.

Thanks.

zen_guerrilla · 2003-11-08 12:23:53

The ximianized OO has nice eye-candy but it's not quite there. One major glitch (among others) is that it uses fontconfig for font management, which results in better looking fonts & lots of problems. Plus, I think vanilla is more light-weight than the ximianized one.
Debian sid uses it so I use it too at work. I'd suggest to stick with vanilla at the moment.

nifan · 2003-11-08 13:29:49

maybe there could be 2 versions od OO, the vanilla and the ximian. but its kind of space killer

sarah31 · 2003-11-08 17:22:15

i have no plans on using any ximianized product no matter how nice.

contrasutra · 2003-11-08 18:44:29

sarah31 wrote:

i have no plans on using any ximianized product no matter how nice.

Do you have a reason or did they kill your baby?

red_over_blue · 2003-11-08 19:48:46

Maybe a good solution for people who would like to try a ximian OOo would be for someone (not me) to create a PKGBUILD and simply post it here. Then, if people are THAT interested, they can sit through the hours of compiling themselves

Alternately, create a pkg, and host it on your own machine. If someone goes through the trouble of creating a PKGBUILD, I will compile it myself and host it on my system if there are no alternatives.

contrasutra · 2003-11-09 01:12:07

I'd compile it, but I have dialup.

And I would not be able to upload 70MB on a dialup connection, that would take like 2 days.

sorry. :oops:

hApy · 2003-11-09 02:59:13

well if somebody makes it why not submit it to incoming? more options the better for arch as a whole I would say.. . sarah just said she wouldn't use it, not that it's unsuitable for inclusion in a repository...?

Hapy.

deepfreeze · 2003-11-09 04:55:16

I think that the whole reason for not submitting it to incoming is that the Arch developers and package mainatiners do not want to have two different versions of the same package, as it really doesn't make sense (a dev or maintainer can correct me if I'm wrong). I mean, that's really the whole beauty of ABS is that you can make your own customized packages if you so desire, but there will only be one "official" package that is hosted by Arch.

If someone wants to make the package and then host it on their own site or whatever, I don't think anyone has a problem with it. But incoming is for packages that are for consideration to be included in the "official" Arch repositories, not just a common ftp area for everyone to use.

sarah31 · 2003-11-09 06:08:38

hApy wrote:

well if somebody makes it why not submit it to incoming? more options the better for arch as a whole I would say.. . sarah just said she wouldn't use it, not that it's unsuitable for inclusion in a repository...?

there is no need for two openoffices. one is in the repo already that works fine. it may not meet everyone's standards eye candy-wise but it finctions as it should. having any other s would server no purpose except to take up server space. besides ximian products tend to be buggy and intrusive. one distro i used used ximian gnome and it was a freaking nightmare to administer the system. i have also talked with other users who tried ximian products with other distros and it is pretty well unanimous that ximian sucks completely.

i believe their OO is a binary in which case you can make quite an easy package out of it. some hacking of the product may be requires to fix manu symlinks and such......also i have no clue where ximian will install it.

if someone wants it that person can use abs to make their own package and share their final product with either a PKGBUILD here or host the final package on their web space.

Guest · 2004-02-03 20:58:28

sarah31 wrote:

i have no plans on using any ximianized product no matter how nice.

Whatever you say. Never try to use evolution, you named it.

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-02-03 21:01:16

the Chicks Pink wrote:

sarah31 wrote:
i have no plans on using any ximianized product no matter how nice.
Whatever you say. Never try to use evolution, you named it.

Won't you mock my nick, schmock?
:cry:

sarah31 · 2004-02-03 22:30:27

oh yay spammers

contrasutra · 2004-02-04 00:06:17

sarah31 wrote:

oh yay spammers

Oh c'mon, your posts aren't THAT annoying.

sarah31 · 2004-02-04 01:40:50

yeah and people ask why i don't use arch.

Arch Linux

#1 2003-10-31 20:18:01

Ximian version of OO.o

#2 2003-11-08 12:23:53

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#3 2003-11-08 13:29:49

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#4 2003-11-08 17:22:15

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#5 2003-11-08 18:44:29

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#6 2003-11-08 19:48:46

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#7 2003-11-09 01:12:07

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#8 2003-11-09 02:59:13

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#9 2003-11-09 04:55:16

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#10 2003-11-09 06:08:38

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#11 2004-02-03 20:58:28

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#12 2004-02-03 21:01:16

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#13 2004-02-03 22:30:27

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#14 2004-02-04 00:06:17

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

#15 2004-02-04 01:40:50

Re: Ximian version of OO.o

Board footer