[libreoffice-users] Re: Side by side install of LibO and OOo

In news:itrfh0$4be$1@dough.gmane.org,
NoOp <glgxg@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> On 06/18/2011 02:52 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> > Hi ..,
> >
> > aqualung wrote (18-06-11 06:12)
> > > It would be nice to have the option of keeping OOo, for
> > > the odd case when something that works in it is broken
> > > in LibreOffice, or when you need OOo installed in order
> > > to provide help to another user who has OOo but not
> > > LibO.
> >
> > I think that is a fair idea.
> >
> > > The way to do this, I guess, would be to add an option
> > > in LibO's installation, e.g.:
> >
> > Thanks for your text. Too me, it looks good, though I am
> > not interested myself at all, since I use parallel
> > installation all the time ;-) Could be handy for you too:
> > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel
>
> This is the issue that I brought up in December on the LO
> dev list:
> <http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4130>
> [Change executable/sh names]
> Here we are on 3.4.rc1 and no further down the line.
> You'll need to expand some of the posts in that thread to
> see that I
> actually tested by changing the executables names & that
> works. Sample:
> <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/4360>
>
> So the issue *still* remains that LO uses OOo .exe names.
> Does the same
> in Linux as well:
> $ ls /opt/libreoffice3.4/program
> about.png         oosplash.bin  services.rdb  soffice.bin
> unopkg.bin
> bootstraprc       python        setuprc       sofficerc
> versionrc
> fundamentalrc     redirectrc    shell         spadmin
> intro.png         sbase         simpress      swriter
> kdefilepicker     scalc         smath         unoinfo
> libnpsoplugin.so  sdraw         soffice       unopkg
>
> When will LO stand on their own and change these?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. OOo and LO are now two 
different "companies" for want of a better word, and I've never heard of any 
coder wanting to use the same names for their code as another program does. 
Swriter etc. being common names was an eye opener I'd never thought of, but 
that same naming convention has been in place for a long time. I would think 
it falls on LO to do a search & destroy on said application names since 
they're the newest kids on the block. Maybe it needs to be Lwriter or 
something; anything that's unique and unambiguous.
   There should be NO common files, period, IMO, so that OOo and LO can do 
whatever they need to do. Just as AMI, MS, WP, et al can all live together 
and even be run simultaneiously, so should  OOo and LO.
   Personally I don't care and I'm not sure how valid having to install both 
is since there are some workarounds that might suffice, but: OTOH, it does 
seem like they should install peacefully, whatever the actual reason is for 
the problems; it just makes sense.

HTH,

Twayne`




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@global.libreoffice.org
In case of problems unsubscribing, write to postmaster@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted