[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#377531: [rene@debian.org: Re: Bug#377531: openoffice.org-dev: unowinreg.dll should be included]

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

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

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

>      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.



- ----- End forwarded message -----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: