So as long as the libriopenoffice is in (o) other packages having a need for some flavor of openoffice depending on arch-linux dependencies policy would take the official packages first. If that's the case such naming conventions would be unnecessary.On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, ??? wrote: > 2011/3/9 Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > For such a transition, I think it will be helpful for everybody using > > arch-linux to name aall libri-openoffice packages > > libri-openoffice-supported and all oracle-openoffice packages > > oracle-openoffice-unsupported. Debian at any rate has a playground area > > where unsupported packages go within its repositories as well. That might > > get the message across to even windows users. Certainly if I do a new > > installation of arch-linux I'd want libri-openoffice-supported on my > > system as opposed to anything else.On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 22:00 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > >> > just an fyi, > >> > openoffice itself is *huge* and now that it is going to be dropped to > >> > the aur, it will most likely lose all audience because of how long it > >> > takes to compile from source. + libreoffice is just a better version > >> > of openoffice imo, so there should really be no one that uses it. > >> > >> People who want openoffice will probably just use the -bin packages? > >> > >> > > > > > > > > For Arch Linux,the AUR Repo is UNSUPPORTED?and Offical Repo is always > supported,so i think it is unnecessary to name like that. > >
