You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> on 2012/01/06 11:31:05 UTC
/usr/bin/openoffice.org
Hi all,
I just discovered that on a Ubuntu 11.10 (64Bit), which has libreoffice
preinstalled, there is the following link:
/usr/bin/openoffice.org -> libreoffice
Regards,
Andre
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org>.
On 06/01/12 11:54, Andre Fischer wrote:
> Ah, found another one:
>
> Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package "openoffice.org" which installs
> LibreOffice. It is not installed by default (the "libreoffice" package
> is) and also provides the 'explanation'
>
> <quote>
> This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org packaging
> with the LibreOffice packaging.
>
> It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
> </quote>
>
> but still, is this OK?
hi Andre,
this is a standard procedure that happens regularly on deb-based
distributions: upstream communities do weird things such as re-brand,
fork, become inactive and resume at a different place with a different
name, etc.; examples that come to mind include GAIM re-branded to Pidgin,
Debian's Mozilla stuff re-branded IceAnimals, or the git/gnuit conflict.
the approach is that an empty package with the old name which has a
dependency on the real package with the new name is included in the next
release, to ensure a smooth upgrade experience for users (because
otherwise an outdated and unsupported version of the old package would
remain, which is bad from a security point of view). this "transitional"
package is then usually dropped one release later (though i don't know
what happens exactly on Ubuntu, which supports upgrades between LTS releases).
in this case i guess it's at the discretion of the distributions which of
the 2 successors of the deceased OpenOffice.org they transition to (and
given the lack of a release from Apache OpenOffice it shouldn't surprise
anybody that currently LibreOffice is the more popular transition target).
regards,
michael
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/1/6 Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> No wonder people are confused about openoffice.org. We have to protect
> the openoffice.org brand.
>
>
>
On openSUSE, LibO came as a "normal" update from the update repo, and
installed on top of the existing (Novell version of) OOo without a
warning...
Not a problem for me (I always installed vanilla OOo by hand) but it was a
big surprise for many people...
Cheers
Ricardo
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 1/6/12 12:43 PM, eric b wrote:
>> Hi Jürgen,
>>
>>
>> Le 6 janv. 12 à 12:18, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
>>
>>> On 1/6/12 11:54 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>>>> Ah, found another one:
>>>>
>>>> Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package "openoffice.org" which installs
>>>> LibreOffice. It is not installed by default (the "libreoffice" package
>>>> is) and also provides the 'explanation'
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org packaging
>>>> with the LibreOffice packaging.
>>>>
>>>> It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> but still, is this OK?
>>>
>>> it sounds strange and not really ok for me.
>>
>>
>> Same for me.
>>
>>
>>> First they could still support older versions of OOo and second we
>>> would probably like to reserve this package name for an upgrade to AOO
>>> if possible at a later time.
>>>
>>> I hope we can find some support for this later. But using the name and
>>> installing something different is of course confusing and misleading,
>>> isn't it?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm complaining about that since several month (e.g. on this list 23
>> november 11h19). Glad to see I'm not the only one now.
>
> I would assume that hey have done it without a hidden agenda and thought it would be ok ;-)
>
> I don't want or better I don't think that it make sense if we make a big issue out of this.
>
> I think we want have a good relation to them and we should potentially send a friendly reminder that we see a problem here.
>
> As a user I would expect that I get the latest OOo 3.3 version. And in the future we would like to use it to get an AOO with some explanation.
>
> Any other opinions?
No wonder people are confused about openoffice.org. We have to protect the openoffice.org brand.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Juergen
>
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
FWIW;
These situations are usually resolved easily by a nice cease
and desist letter from legal@.
The BSD games collection has been a usual target to
many of those. Look what happened to monop, boggle and
tetris:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/games/Makefile
cheers,
Pedro.
--- Ven 6/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:
> > Hi Jürgen,
> >
> >
> > Le 6 janv. 12 à 12:18, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
> >
> >> On 1/6/12 11:54 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
> >>> Ah, found another one:
> >>>
> >>> Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package
> "openoffice.org" which installs
> >>> LibreOffice. It is not installed by default
> (the "libreoffice" package
> >>> is) and also provides the 'explanation'
> >>>
> >>> <quote>
> >>> This is a transitional package, replacing the
> OpenOffice.org packaging
> >>> with the LibreOffice packaging.
> >>>
> >>> It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
> >>> </quote>
> >>>
> >>> but still, is this OK?
> >>
> >> it sounds strange and not really ok for me.
> >
> >
> > Same for me.
> >
> >
> >> First they could still support older versions of
> OOo and second we
> >> would probably like to reserve this package name
> for an upgrade to AOO
> >> if possible at a later time.
> >>
> >> I hope we can find some support for this later.
> But using the name and
> >> installing something different is of course
> confusing and misleading,
> >> isn't it?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm complaining about that since several month (e.g.
> on this list 23
> > november 11h19). Glad to see I'm not the only one
> now.
>
> I would assume that hey have done it without a hidden
> agenda and thought
> it would be ok ;-)
>
> I don't want or better I don't think that it make sense if
> we make a big
> issue out of this.
>
> I think we want have a good relation to them and we should
> potentially
> send a friendly reminder that we see a problem here.
>
> As a user I would expect that I get the latest OOo 3.3
> version. And in
> the future we would like to use it to get an AOO with some
> explanation.
>
> Any other opinions?
>
> Juergen
>
>
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 17:05 +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > I think we want have a good relation to them and we should potentially
> > send a friendly reminder that we see a problem here.
> > As a user I would expect that I get the latest OOo 3.3 version. And in
> > the future we would like to use it to get an AOO with some explanation.
>
> Sure. However, Ubuntu and the vast majority of distributions always
> shipped ooo-build calling it OpenOffice.org, and it is reasonable that
> when ooo-build became LibreOffice (thus a fork instead of a patchset)
> they decided to minimize the effect of the name change.
>
> But now it would make sense that the "openoffice"/"openoffice.org"
> namespace is left free for Apache OpenOffice.
Although I understand how that happened, I'm sorry to say that I don't
see how anyone can construe it to be anything more then a case of 'bait
and switch'.
//drew
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> I think we want have a good relation to them and we should potentially
> send a friendly reminder that we see a problem here.
> As a user I would expect that I get the latest OOo 3.3 version. And in
> the future we would like to use it to get an AOO with some explanation.
Sure. However, Ubuntu and the vast majority of distributions always
shipped ooo-build calling it OpenOffice.org, and it is reasonable that
when ooo-build became LibreOffice (thus a fork instead of a patchset)
they decided to minimize the effect of the name change.
But now it would make sense that the "openoffice"/"openoffice.org"
namespace is left free for Apache OpenOffice.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 1/6/12 12:43 PM, eric b wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
>
> Le 6 janv. 12 à 12:18, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
>
>> On 1/6/12 11:54 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>>> Ah, found another one:
>>>
>>> Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package "openoffice.org" which installs
>>> LibreOffice. It is not installed by default (the "libreoffice" package
>>> is) and also provides the 'explanation'
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org packaging
>>> with the LibreOffice packaging.
>>>
>>> It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> but still, is this OK?
>>
>> it sounds strange and not really ok for me.
>
>
> Same for me.
>
>
>> First they could still support older versions of OOo and second we
>> would probably like to reserve this package name for an upgrade to AOO
>> if possible at a later time.
>>
>> I hope we can find some support for this later. But using the name and
>> installing something different is of course confusing and misleading,
>> isn't it?
>>
>
>
> I'm complaining about that since several month (e.g. on this list 23
> november 11h19). Glad to see I'm not the only one now.
I would assume that hey have done it without a hidden agenda and thought
it would be ok ;-)
I don't want or better I don't think that it make sense if we make a big
issue out of this.
I think we want have a good relation to them and we should potentially
send a friendly reminder that we see a problem here.
As a user I would expect that I get the latest OOo 3.3 version. And in
the future we would like to use it to get an AOO with some explanation.
Any other opinions?
Juergen
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi Jürgen,
Le 6 janv. 12 à 12:18, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
> On 1/6/12 11:54 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>> Ah, found another one:
>>
>> Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package "openoffice.org" which
>> installs
>> LibreOffice. It is not installed by default (the "libreoffice"
>> package
>> is) and also provides the 'explanation'
>>
>> <quote>
>> This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org
>> packaging
>> with the LibreOffice packaging.
>>
>> It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
>> </quote>
>>
>> but still, is this OK?
>
> it sounds strange and not really ok for me.
Same for me.
> First they could still support older versions of OOo and second we
> would probably like to reserve this package name for an upgrade to
> AOO if possible at a later time.
>
> I hope we can find some support for this later. But using the name
> and installing something different is of course confusing and
> misleading, isn't it?
>
I'm complaining about that since several month (e.g. on this list 23
november 11h19). Glad to see I'm not the only one now.
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 1/6/12 11:54 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
> Ah, found another one:
>
> Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package "openoffice.org" which installs
> LibreOffice. It is not installed by default (the "libreoffice" package
> is) and also provides the 'explanation'
>
> <quote>
> This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org packaging
> with the LibreOffice packaging.
>
> It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
> </quote>
>
> but still, is this OK?
it sounds strange and not really ok for me. First they could still
support older versions of OOo and second we would probably like to
reserve this package name for an upgrade to AOO if possible at a later time.
I hope we can find some support for this later. But using the name and
installing something different is of course confusing and misleading,
isn't it?
Juergen
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
Ah, found another one:
Synaptic on Ubuntu 11.10 has a package "openoffice.org" which installs
LibreOffice. It is not installed by default (the "libreoffice" package
is) and also provides the 'explanation'
<quote>
This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org packaging
with the LibreOffice packaging.
It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
</quote>
but still, is this OK?
-Andre
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
On 06.01.2012 11:54, eric b wrote:
> apt-get install openoffice.org
On Ubuntu 11.10 this will install a lot of libreoffice-* packages.
Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Le 6 janv. 12 à 11:31, Andre Fischer a écrit :
> Hi all,
Hi Andre,
> I just discovered that on a Ubuntu 11.10 (64Bit), which has
> libreoffice preinstalled, there is the following link:
>
> /usr/bin/openoffice.org -> libreoffice
>
And what returns :
apt-get install openoffice.org
?
Regards,
Eric
>
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news