Bug#377531: [rene@debian.org: Re: Bug#377531: openoffice.org-dev: unowinreg.dll should be included]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- ----- Forwarded message from Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> -----
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:17:36 +0200
From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
To: Kovacs Baldvin <baldvin@cs.elte.hu>, 37753@bugs.debian.org
Cc: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#377531: openoffice.org-dev: unowinreg.dll should be included
Organization: The Debian Project
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
severity 377531 wishlist
tag 377531 + wontfix
thanks
Kovacs Baldvin wrote:
> I did not find any threads on the mailing list about this decision, so
> I can only guess about the reasons. And I can't see any valid reasons,
> so I'm heavily outraged. It took 4 hours of my life, possibly because
> of some windows-hater license-lover guy.
There's no source for this. It can't be built. It is binary-only shit.
- -> not includeable.
Linux is about free software, and shipping binaries you can't reproduce
is bad.
OTOH, if you sent a patch which makes the .dll buildable from the OOo
build process (maybe due the mingw cross-compiler), but it links against
kernel32.lib and advapi32.lib...
> 1st: because /usr/lib/openoffice/sdk/settings/std.mk refers to this
> file, a "make" in /usr/lib/openoffice/sdk/examples/java/Spreadsheet
> cannot possibly succeed. However, as programming openoffice is
> as complicated as it is, I think this actually prevents those small
> "masses" who would be able to dig into it from actually try
> to program under openoffice with java.
That might be a valid point.
I'll look whether it can be worked around...
> 2nd: changing /usr/lib/openoffice/sdk/settings/std.mk not to include
> the reference to that dll would be a proof of "unusability by
> policy", and would definitely make me consider leaving the Debian
> camp. Why? Because I want to have a usable system, and not a
Debian is about shipping reproducible and fixable packages. We can't fix
bugs in that .dll. Debian is about free software; we don't have the
source.
You are free to package it for contrib, though (building ith with a
windows cross-compiler and with the Windows .dlls - or for non-free just
taking the binary)
And know, you just can workaround it by getting it from some other OOo
install. It's not as that would differ, the files is as *binary* in OOos
CVS.
> religion instead. I want Windows users to be able to use my
> programs. That is why I am taking the time to learn this
This is not.
Setting to wishlist and wontifx. Sorry, I don't like that I have to
remove it either but I have no choice.
Regards,
Rene
- ----- End forwarded message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEsYIh+FmQsCSK63MRAjUaAJsFu+06E6T6Lx9GG9RJiL+QmowmhACfS+Qh
chomIRbe0OyG0yjAAEaTYFw=
=A047
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: