Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index


In light of <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/177998.html> "Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice"

"[...] given OOo/LO's tradition of being installable to arbitrary locations (which in turn is a direct consequence of its multi-plaform nature), there's code available in OOo/LO's SDK that can be bundled with [...] applications [that programmatically spawn an OOo
process to get their work done] to help them to find a OOo/LO
installation, with fallbacks to platform-specific heuristics. For Unix, that includes searching PATH for a file or symlink named 'soffice'. Not breaking that has been one reason why it has never been considered worthwhile to drop the /usr/bin/soffice symlink 'just for aesthetics.'"

---is there any rationale for <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178173.html> "Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice"

"[...] looks like <http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b1cf810a8e7342ad5d518528fd58266daf6e90ec> 'LibreOffice branding: make desktop integration work (fix2)' dropped the /usr/bin/soffice symlink from the upstream LO packages, for reasons that escape me---maybe it was just ignorance or an oversight."

Stephan

Context


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.