Bug 430427 - Review Request: BrOffice.org - Brazilian release of OpenOffice.org
Review Request: BrOffice.org - Brazilian release of OpenOffice.org
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Davidson Paulo
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 358021
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-01-27 19:20 EST by Davidson Paulo
Modified: 2008-01-28 15:09 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-01-28 15:09:22 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Davidson Paulo 2008-01-27 19:20:21 EST
Spec URL: http://dpaulo.fedorapeople.org/usr/src/redhat/SPECS/broffice.org.spec
SRPM URL: http://dpaulo.fedorapeople.org/usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/broffice.org-2.3.0-3.src.rpm
Description: BrOffice.org is the official Brazilian release of OpenOffice.org. The name BrOffice.org is used because "Open Office" is a trademark of a company in Brazil. BrOffice.org is not a fork nor a derived software, it is purelly OpenOffice.org translated to Brazilian Portuguese.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-27 19:31:09 EST
I glanced at the specfile and I have to say that I do not think what's done in
the %post scriptlets of each of these packages is going to be acceptable for
Fedora.  Have you communicated with the Fedora maintainer of OpenOffice to see
if there's a reasonable way of handling what you're trying to do?
Comment 2 Davidson Paulo 2008-01-27 19:43:15 EST
Those packages are just meta-packages that change most of references of
"OpenOffice.org" to "BrOffice.org". Once BrOffice.org is not more than
OpenOffice.org translated to pt_BR there is no need to create entire new
packages. The way I packaged, when you install broffice.org-core do you have a
BrOffice.org installation. Removing it gives you back your OpenOffice.org. The
other broffice.org-* packages are just meta-packages, once people that know
BrOffice.org will install broffice.org-writer instead openoffice.org-writer.

I have communicated with Caolan, he is the maintainer of OpenOffice.org packages
isn't he?

Thanks for your feedback.
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2008-01-28 00:04:19 EST
Yeah, sed-ing and moving of files that belong to other packages isn't really kosher.
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-28 11:35:06 EST
There are many signicant issues with doing this kind of thing:

rpm -V on the openoffice packages will fail if this package is installed.
An openoffice package update wipes out any changes made by this package.

Really, this isn't the right way to do things.  I chatted with Caolan on IRC and
he pointed me at bug 358021 and mentioned that this should all wait until the
lawyers give us all the set of requirements which must be followed because
there's a chance that everything necessary can be done within the Brazilian
langpack.  He hopes to hear something in a week or two.
Comment 5 Davidson Paulo 2008-01-28 12:04:51 EST
I made those packages as a proof of concept, just to show how few are the
differences between OpenOffice.org and BrOffice.org and to see what problems
would need to be fixed yet. I hope they are useful in some way.

Sorry if I don't done things the right way, I'm here to help the better I can.
I'll wait your feedback. By now, thank you very much.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-28 13:53:03 EST
Oh, OK.  The procedure you've used is the one for submitting new packages in
Fedora, so you've been getting package review feedback.  If you aren't actually
submitting these packages for inclusion in Fedora then I'd suggest that you
either close this ticket or change the component to something other than Package
Comment 7 Davidson Paulo 2008-01-28 15:04:33 EST
Once the packages are not acceptable, I think this ticket may be closed. I'm
going to post a comment on ticket #358021 with the URL's for the packages.

Once again, thanks for the feedback. :-)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.