Bug#661654: libreoffice-common: 'man libreoffice': "--convert-to" available filter list not described.

[Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>]

retitle 661654 libreoffice-common: 'man libreoffice': "--convert-to": mention *all* possible file extensions
severity 661654 wishlist
tag 661654 + wontfix
thanks

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 06:08:12PM -0500, A. Costa wrote:
> 'man libroffice' mentions converting certain file formats: 
> 
>     % man libreoffice | grep -n "\-\-convert\-to" | tail -n +2
>     53:       --convert-to output_file_extension[:output_filter_name]  [-outdir  output_dir]
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It clearly says "output_file_extension"

>     61:              --convert-to pdf *.doc
>     65:              --convert-to pdf:writer_pdf_Export -outdir /home/user *.doc
> 
> ...the examples indicate 'pdf' works.  'pdf' is the only output 

Yes, *examples*. Examples does not mean "all possible options" it means "example
on how to use it"

> format cited.
> 
> Using a 'ppt' file as input, I've also had success with:
> 
>     --convert-to odi
>     --convert-to swf
> 
> These should all be documented.  

Ah, right. Document all possible file extensions? That would make the list being insanely
long and a maintainance nightmare.

Besides that some formats only get supported when you install the
respective module...

> There should also be a way for users to list all possible outputs.
> Something like 'mplayer -vo help' would be useful.  The output
> list might be made context sensitive relative to the input.
> 
> Possible syntax, would be something like:
> 
>     loimpress  --convert-to list  /tmp/USCarriers.pps
>     
> ...'list' could show only the formats 'pps' could be partially 
> or completely converted to.  It would not show incompatible formats
> such as 'xls'.
> 
>     loimpress  --convert-to list_all  /tmp/USCarriers.pps
> 
> ...'list_all' would show all of the filters.  It would show
> 'xls'.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps...

This is not a "normal" bug in any case, it's wishlist.

And no, it actually doesn't, I at least won't patch that as such, maybe
you have more chance when you file this upstream.
You only achieved having one more + wontfix bug lying around for infinity.

Regards,

Rene