[ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

normal2 · 2011-03-25 15:51:16

[arch@arch ~]$ sudo pacman -Syu
:: Synchronizing package databases...
 core                     37.4K  103.8K/s 00:00:00 [######################] 100%
 extra                   470.7K  198.4K/s 00:00:02 [######################] 100%
 community               430.2K  251.2K/s 00:00:02 [######################] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-ct2n? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-diagram? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-hunart? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-nlpsolver? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-numbertext? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-oooblogger? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-pdfimport? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-presentation-minimizer? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-presenter-screen? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-report-builder? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-typo? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-watch-window? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-extension-wiki-publisher? [Y/n] y
:: Replace openoffice-base with extra/libreoffice-sdk? [Y/n] y
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Remove (1): openoffice-base-3.3.0-1

Total Removed Size:   243.09 MB

Targets (22): attr-2.4.44-3  gecko-mediaplayer-1.0.0-3
              kernel26-lts-2.6.32.33-2  ndiswrapper-lts-1.56-5
              libgsf-1.14.18-2  libwpd-0.9.1-1  libreoffice-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-ct2n-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-diagram-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-hunart-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-nlpsolver-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-numbertext-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-oooblogger-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-pdfimport-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-presentation-minimizer-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-presenter-screen-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-report-builder-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-typo-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-watch-window-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-extension-wiki-publisher-3.3.2-1
              libreoffice-sdk-3.3.2-1  pm-utils-1.4.1-3

Total Download Size:    110.34 MB
Total Installed Size:   383.25 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]

Is this some new renaming of the software I have not been introduced to?

For now, I will not update until someone explains the reason for it to replace openoffice.

Never tried libreoffice though, might be better?

Running Gnome.

Last edited by normal2 (2011-03-25 16:24:54)

bohoomil · 2011-03-25 16:08:52

It's basically the same, and even better. From what I've read on the mailing list, OpenOffice is supposed to be dropped and replaced with LibreOffice. I think you should upgrade to LibreOffice and start to benefit from it.

normal2 · 2011-03-25 16:15:46

Thanks, this is a legit change then; will now press Y in the Terminal
Will subscribe to that mailing list. Hopefuly it will keep me up to date on latest news regarding packages!

schneida · 2011-03-25 19:05:24

Super good job ArchDevels! Thanks for make my plugins unusable, because LibO is not compatible to them and especially thanks for not announcing that anywhere. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, everybody reads the mailing lists!

Great! Really great...

ngoonee · 2011-03-25 20:48:49

schneida wrote:

Super good job ArchDevels! Thanks for make my plugins unusable, because LibO is not compatible to them and especially thanks for not announcing that anywhere. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, everybody reads the mailing lists!
Great! Really great...

Even if you're not on a ML, if you want to use Arch you should be able to use google. AND you should know how to downgrade. Which of these is a problem for you?

setokaiba1308 · 2011-03-25 22:07:53

ngoonee wrote:

schneida wrote:
Super good job ArchDevels! Thanks for make my plugins unusable, because LibO is not compatible to them and especially thanks for not announcing that anywhere. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, everybody reads the mailing lists!
Great! Really great...
Even if you're not on a ML, if you want to use Arch you should be able to use google. AND you should know how to downgrade. Which of these is a problem for you?

The real problem is that the Arch Linux developers are making us change our software.

Personally I don't trust LO yet, and that's why I keep using OOo, my computer is my tool work and I really don't feel like being forced to use another software... and to be honest, I don't see ant freedom here.

SS4 · 2011-03-25 22:12:32

You have the freedom to press "n". Downgrading is simple anyway

DaveCode · 2011-03-26 04:17:19

I am also annoyed. I expect an Arch home page blurb for big, important apps. Or at least some kind of forum announcement. I had to get here by stopping pacman's process, then doing forum search.

I don't like mixing. If I am going to switch to LibreOffice then I will do it wholesale. Arch needs to explain the situation. I would rather remove OOo entirely first, and then install LibreOffice.

The guy saying "downgrade is easy" please desist. This huge package set has many blobs from two competing groups.

I don't read mailing lists, either. I look at the home page for news.

ngoonee · 2011-03-26 04:57:01

setokaiba1308 wrote:

The real problem is that the Arch Linux developers are making us change our software.
Personally I don't trust LO yet, and that's why I keep using OOo, my computer is my tool work and I really don't feel like being forced to use another software... and to be honest, I don't see ant freedom here.

Arch is what you make it, you can use whatever software you want. Go use openoffice from the AUR, no one is forcing you to do anything.

If you don't like it, go ahead and apply to be a TU/dev and maintain openoffice. Packages in the repo aren't chosen because of popularity or perceived importance (except for [core]), they're chosen because some dev/TU has decided this software is worth maintaining. You are free to use whatever you want, but not to ask someone else to maintain packages for you.

DaveCode wrote:

I am also annoyed. I expect an Arch home page blurb for big, important apps. Or at least some kind of forum announcement. I had to get here by stopping pacman's process, then doing forum search.
I don't like mixing. If I am going to switch to LibreOffice then I will do it wholesale. Arch needs to explain the situation. I would rather remove OOo entirely first, and then install LibreOffice.
The guy saying "downgrade is easy" please desist. This huge package set has many blobs from two competing groups.
I don't read mailing lists, either. I look at the home page for news.

There is no difference if you pacman -R first and then pacman -S libreoffice. Exactly the same thing is done.

This upgrade does not (should not) break things, it is mainly just a name change. The first release of libreoffice was basically just all openoffice's code (some small fixes here and there), which is why language packs and add-ons mainly just worked.

Korrode · 2011-03-26 05:34:54

lol @ people complaining about this and saying things like they're being "forced", lol indeed.

gattu_marrudu · 2011-03-26 08:57:25

I agree with who complains about the changes. Libreoffice might even be a thousand times better than OOO, but I think users should be given the safest option as default. Ooo is a vital piece of software for many users' everyday job and I think it should be handled with care. One might eventually shift to libreoffice but I think one needs a smoother transition.

Example scenario: I'm not a linux geek and I just want a solid system do do my job, having to fiddle with upgrade tweaks as little as possible. I don't care about how efficient Ooo is. It just works for me (and millions of other users).
Upgrading with yaourt --sucre (as I do sometimes) is probably not the safest way, because it is not interactive and gives the default options - but it is a possible choice.
If I did not have openoffice-[lang] package dependencies blocking yaourt/pacman from upgrading, I would have had the whole ooo package replaced in a swoop with some software that I never heard about before.
Again, this is the worst case scenario, but I think it should be considered, given the possible consequences it can give.
For now, I'll just block the libreoffice* package upgrades from my pacman.conf until I have time to research about libreoffice.

A big thanks to the Arch developers and maintainers for making such a great and up to date distro!
gm

bohoomil · 2011-03-26 09:23:36

Oh my!... I can't imagine what could have happened if Arch changed its name overnight... Or its logo at least...

Emotions will always go before reason. Always and everywhere.

dershodan · 2011-03-26 13:10:03

don't you remember, that most core developers left OpenOffice and dedicated their work to Libre office instead? This was, if i'm correctly informed, because Oracle/Sun didn't let the developers decide freely enough on the course of the project anymore.
Now replacing OpenOffice with LibreOffice is a big step and a quite clear statement. I was honestly amused seeing the "replace OO with LO" options.

Cheers.

ngoonee · 2011-03-26 13:27:07

gattu_marrudu wrote:

I agree with who complains about the changes. Libreoffice might even be a thousand times better than OOO, but I think users should be given the safest option as default. Ooo is a vital piece of software for many users' everyday job and I think it should be handled with care. One might eventually shift to libreoffice but I think one needs a smoother transition.
Example scenario: I'm not a linux geek and I just want a solid system do do my job, having to fiddle with upgrade tweaks as little as possible. I don't care about how efficient Ooo is. It just works for me (and millions of other users).
Upgrading with yaourt --sucre (as I do sometimes) is probably not the safest way, because it is not interactive and gives the default options - but it is a possible choice.
If I did not have openoffice-[lang] package dependencies blocking yaourt/pacman from upgrading, I would have had the whole ooo package replaced in a swoop with some software that I never heard about before.
Again, this is the worst case scenario, but I think it should be considered, given the possible consequences it can give.
For now, I'll just block the libreoffice* package upgrades from my pacman.conf until I have time to research about libreoffice.
A big thanks to the Arch developers and maintainers for making such a great and up to date distro!
gm

Let me save you some time, libreoffice IS openoffice. This change was not made for 'better than' reasons, its simply that due to political reasons (which you can search for and read if you wish to) most of the major contributors to openoffice decided to fork it and call it libreoffice. Those who keep reasonably up-to-date would notice no difference in functionality between both packages, because their code bases are (or were) almost identical.

Or put another way - if you don't have time or inclination to keep up-to-date with news on the software you use, then the best thing to do is trust the Arch devs. They rarely use replaces, and only when its important.

DaveCode · 2011-03-27 05:17:56

Dear ngoonee,

The things you said here, are all that you had to say in a home page blurb.

Dear dershodan,

I've tracked OOo politics and code for years. They are not the topic. Arch is doing the right thing and I don't argue with it. What I want is, as you put it, a "clear statement" on the home page for big app news.

It costs nothing. The request is innocent. You clearly have the energy for it. If the gang here would just type these thoughts into a home page blurb, instead of waiting for *@#^$#& comments from confused people, we would all swim nicely! And Arch would improve. The home page is a bit slow if you ask me.

Thanks.

ngoonee · 2011-03-27 06:58:41

The forum moderators have no control over the home page (I'm actually not sure who does). This sort of topic comes up every once in a while, everyone thinks 'news X' is homepage worthy, mostly because it affects them directly.

Similarly to devs/TUs and packages adopted, the home page is updated with news that its maintainer believes is important. FWIW I haven't checked the homepage in months, [arch-dev-public] is where the 'real' announcements are normally made.

slot · 2011-03-27 21:35:31

bohoomil wrote:

It's basically the same, and even better. From what I've read on the mailing list, OpenOffice is supposed to be dropped and replaced with LibreOffice. I think you should upgrade to LibreOffice and start to benefit from it.

Except for at least one thing: Bibus does not work with LibreOffice due to a UNO bug in Go-openoffice which libre-office is based on.

Can someone suggest the best method by which I don't have to answer no 15 times every upgrade, and keep my openoffice until the bug is hopefully fixed someday - please??

bohoomil · 2011-03-27 22:26:37

/etc/pacman.conf:

IgnorePkg   = libreoffice
IgnoreGroup = libreoffice

Edit:

By the way, a quick look at Bibus site made me sure that

Bibus works on most modern platforms:
GNU/Linux with LibreOffice.org and OpenOffice.org

If there's a known bug and LO is supported by Bibus developer, so it shouldn't be impossible to ask them for a fix, or at least let them know that something is wrong with LO & Bibus. Don't you think?

Last edited by bohoomil (2011-03-27 22:30:25)

DaveCode · 2011-04-01 07:43:29

ngoonee wrote:

The forum moderators have no control over the home page (I'm actually not sure who does). This sort of topic comes up every once in a while, everyone thinks 'news X' is homepage worthy, mostly because it affects them directly.
Similarly to devs/TUs and packages adopted, the home page is updated with news that its maintainer believes is important. FWIW I haven't checked the homepage in months, [arch-dev-public] is where the 'real' announcements are normally made.

Well, then Arch is schizoid. I don't see "control" at issue like that. It's just coordination. The home page has a "news" scroll area, yet you explain the "real" news is on some mailing list. Some political reason exists why two groups can't coordinate PR?

I have never seen your advice posted anywhere before. And I've used Arch for years now. Where does Arch say, "ignore the home page"?

If the home page is not for news, then Arch needs to stop putting any there. If it is for news, and the "real" news is on your list, then Arch needs to mirror the list highlights there.

People deep into Arch need this kind of feedback from people who use it but don't want to go as deep. I am sorry but OpenOffice *is* big enough to merit home page news. Please do not dismiss user feedback so quickly. Think about other usage patterns than your own. And I am an IT professional, programmer, sysadmin. I still do not want to be dragged into mailing lists to find out about big app changes.

I find it hard to promote Arch for exactly this kind of reason. If you are going to divide Arch into subgroups then post a politics map some place obvious.

ngoonee · 2011-04-01 08:36:15

DaveCode wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
The forum moderators have no control over the home page (I'm actually not sure who does). This sort of topic comes up every once in a while, everyone thinks 'news X' is homepage worthy, mostly because it affects them directly.
Similarly to devs/TUs and packages adopted, the home page is updated with news that its maintainer believes is important. FWIW I haven't checked the homepage in months, [arch-dev-public] is where the 'real' announcements are normally made.
Well, then Arch is schizoid. I don't see "control" at issue like that. It's just coordination. The home page has a "news" scroll area, yet you explain the "real" news is on some mailing list. Some political reason exists why two groups can't coordinate PR?
I have never seen your advice posted anywhere before. And I've used Arch for years now. Where does Arch say, "ignore the home page"?
If the home page is not for news, then Arch needs to stop putting any there. If it is for news, and the "real" news is on your list, then Arch needs to mirror the list highlights there.
People deep into Arch need this kind of feedback from people who use it but don't want to go as deep. I am sorry but OpenOffice *is* big enough to merit home page news. Please do not dismiss user feedback so quickly. Think about other usage patterns than your own. And I am an IT professional, programmer, sysadmin. I still do not want to be dragged into mailing lists to find out about big app changes.
I find it hard to promote Arch for exactly this kind of reason. If you are going to divide Arch into subgroups then post a politics map some place obvious.

This isn't politics, control, or coordination. The simple fact is that there's disjoint groups involved in various areas, all volunteers who got roped in for that specific section of the distro. Arch is unique in that we expect users to be self-reliant in most things. This includes being able to search for the reason a package they use is being replaced.

The home page is not to be ignored, but equally to expect that everything of importance to you is posted there is unrealistic. In any case, you are barking up the wrong tree, contact the maintainer (I'm not even sure who does that) for the website with your concerns. User feedback is only useful if its directed at the right place. A reply on some random forum thread isn't the right place for feedback at all.

AndyRTR · 2011-04-01 19:54:35

Shame on me. It's my fault not to bring a front page news up just because I've decided that one package will be replaced by its fork.

Seriously, when you are a real Archer we expect you to be your own admin and either search yourself for information or trust the devs what we offer you. This time I've put a somewhat longer announce some time ago to the public devel mailing list and also to the arch-general list. Dozens of pros came in and not one cons. So now you have it. I'm in some way responsible for its functionality. So blame me for bugs and errors. After half of a year the most important fork in the open source world now has replaced something on your system. You maintain your Arch system. And because it's nothing where you will need to interact more than to accept the replacement I haven't seen any need to put it on our front page that would still bring up the same questions here anyway...

Have fun with LibO from now on or do with your Arch setup whatever you want. You make Arch to what you want it to be.

-Andy

Arch Linux

#1 2011-03-25 15:51:16

[ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#2 2011-03-25 16:08:52

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#3 2011-03-25 16:15:46

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#4 2011-03-25 19:05:24

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#5 2011-03-25 20:48:49

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#6 2011-03-25 22:07:53

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#7 2011-03-25 22:12:32

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#8 2011-03-26 04:17:19

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#9 2011-03-26 04:57:01

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#10 2011-03-26 05:34:54

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#11 2011-03-26 08:57:25

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#12 2011-03-26 09:23:36

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#13 2011-03-26 13:10:03

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#14 2011-03-26 13:27:07

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#15 2011-03-27 05:17:56

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#16 2011-03-27 06:58:41

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#17 2011-03-27 21:35:31

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#18 2011-03-27 22:26:37

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#19 2011-04-01 07:43:29

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#20 2011-04-01 08:36:15

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

#21 2011-04-01 19:54:35

Re: [ANSWERED] Libreoffice-extension* to replace openoffice-base?

Board footer