On 28 Nov 2016 12:01 pm, "Ed Greshko" <ed.greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/28/16 19:11, James Hogarth wrote:
> > You're right it is out of scope as Apache OpenOffice has never been in
> > Fedora, and given the state of the project I doubt it ever will be.
>
> Yes, but I've never been too much of a fan of telling people what they should and
> shouldn't run. And I like a challenge from time to time when the list isn't that busy. :-)
>
> FWIW, I was able to access the Apache BZ and fixed the crash I was having by installing
> gdk-pixbuf2-xlib. And OpenOffice works just fine.
>
"Just fine" ... If you ignore all the AOO problems indeed...
An important thing to be aware of is that they build the Linux binaries on CentOS 5 which will have a range of poor behavioural issues due to being built against ancient glibc and gcc versions etc.
Generally I agree on the whole "don't tell someone what they should or shouldn't run" mantra but specifically in the AOO situation given the very poor attitude to security issues, almost complete standstill of development, that it is a subset of LO (all AOO commits, as few and far between add they are, get evaluated for inclusion in LO) etc etc I deem it required to ensure people are properly informed about its near-dead status and the potential for security issues (and general exaggerated bugginess due to lack of activity) ...
If he continues to want to use a project that is in such a dire state then so be it, but LO is the supported fork of the old Oo.org code for a reason.
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
