Am Wed, 9 Mar 2011 03:29:18 -0500 (EST)
schrieb Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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,
The office package is called LibreOffice by upstream and not
Libri-OpenOffice or LibriOpenOffice. So it's obvious that the package
in [extra] is called libreoffice.
What the hell is libri-openoffice or libriopenoffice? Who the hell
shall know what this package contains and which package he shall look
for and install if he wants to install LibreOffice?
OpenOffice is openoffice-base and LibreOffice is libreoffice. Very
simple.
And it's well known that LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice. And it's
also well known why the fork happened and why LibreOffice was named
LibreOffice.
So there's really no need to change any package name.
And regarding the replaces=('openoffice-base') in the libreoffice
package, if someone really wants to maintain OpenOffice in AUR the
package should be renamed to openoffice anyway.
Heiko
