On 09-07-29 01:48:56, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 07/29/2009 12:24 AM, Joe Smith wrote: > > I can't see that it's your fault, or Fedora's. It seems like a bad > > design to me, to use stock resources in a way that's almost > > guaranteed to break, but here's the official response: > > > > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=54406 > > > > Yes, "this is a feature and no bug." > > > > I'd say it's worth asking them to take another look, since a > > routine upgrade will break documents that are otherwise untouched, > > but in the end it's all rather academic. > > > > Thanks for the bug. Yes, it seems rather odd to even have their > numbered directory for their stock items. Do they really plan on > letting people have OO.org 2.0 and OO.org 3.0 installed at the same > time? What would that gain anyone? Only the stock items need be preserved, possibly with (hard) links to the current version for files that are unchanged. You could request that Fedora packagers do this in a post-install script, citing the "by design" from the bug above. -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
