That is fine with me personally. This at least is a good start. I
asked politely in my first mail, with respect to people here, trying to
seek for possibility, although was not expecting that kind of response.
If Rene will not package OpenOffice.org anymore (where "OOo" itself
does not exist anymore anyway), that is fine. I was not expecting that
from the beginning. I said I and others would like to try to package
it. I am not so naive to expect @documentfoundation.org people to
package Apache OpenOffice.
Following the Debian policy? Of course. I do not expect something
not following the Debian policy will go into Debian. Thank you for the
information. I believe that helps, although I personally do not
understand that yet. If I need anymore information, I may ask again.
Thanks again, for the kindness and information.
On 2012/03/16 00:36, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:48:05PM +0800, imacat wrote:
>> On 2012/03/15 23:26, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:18:38AM +0800, imacat wrote:
>>>> If you must know, I already made Apache OpenOffice different from
>>>> LibreOffice. See:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7r86jk5
>>>> I am still trying hard to figure out the complex procedure to
>>>> contribute my work back to LibreOffice. You never know the secret.
>>> I personally have found the LibreOffice community to be, as FLOSS
>>> developer communities go, *very* welcoming and easy to contribute to.
>>> See http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development#Preparing_patches
>
>> That's so welcoming and warm! Unlike that creditable list
>> maintainer something (...) made fun of my name (...) said OpenOffice
>> is past on a debian-openoffice@ list when I talked about it (...).
>
> "OpenOffice in Debian is past" is his opinion and everyone is allowed
> to disagree with it. He ain't the list maintainer, "only" the main
> packager of OpenOffice.org (when it existed) and its successor
> LibreOffice in Debian. (Yes, I recognise that Apache OpenOffice is
> also a successor to OpenOffice.org.)
>
> IMO, Rene certainly is (to say the least) not diplomatic about what he
> says and sometimes presents his opinion as fact. Obviously it happens
> that his opinion is right, and then his opinion *is* fact :)
>
> This "rough contact" or "rough style" quite assertive style is indeed
> more widespread in Debian than I'd prefer, and is probably one of the
> reasons Debian has the reputation of being hard to contribute
> to. However, this is not the right place to debate that, so I'll stop
> here.
>
> Let me try to reword the content of what he's saying in a more
> palatable form (or maybe "what I think he should say" instead of "what
> he's saying"):
>
> - Debian, as a culture (an online community), has a very strong
> preference for "real name".
>
> As far as formalities go, it is mandated for some level of
> "official contributor", those whose GnuPG signature gets a package
> into Debian. If you intend to contribute to Debian without exposing
> your "real name", you'll always have to get your changes and
> packages approved by a sponsor before they enter Debian. This is a
> rather frustrating and limiting way of working, and of the approx
> 1000+ Debian contributors, AFAIK only one has made that choice for
> the "real name" reason, and it was a rather controversial event,
> but finally got accepted.
>
> As far as *informal* things go, we kindly warn you that a
> significant subset of the Debian community has a conscious or
> subconscious tendency of being less trusting of people writing
> under a pseudonym and of taking them less seriously. That's
> factual, independently of whether it is a good thing or a bad
> thing. It is indeed atypical as online/FLOSS communities go.
>
> - Rene won't do work on packaging Apache OpenOffice for
> Debian. That's his prerogative as a volunteer to choose what he's
> working on.
>
> - You are free to work on packaging Apache OpenOffice for Debian if
> you want to. You are warned that Rene thinks this is pointless
> because it is impossible, or maybe devilishly hard, to make two
> different forks of OpenOffice.org (namely LibreOffice and Apache
> OpenOffice) in Debian all the while respecting Debian's standard of
> quality codified in the Debian policy. As a community, Debian is
> quite attached to its quality and policy.
>
> However, if you disagree with that technical assessment and think
> you can package Apache OpenOffice in a way that coexists nicely
> with LibreOffice and respects the spirit of the Debian policy, you
> are free to do so and prove Rene wrong. In that case, he won't
> interfere with your efforts. However, if break the prescriptions of
> the Debian policy in a damageable way, he will report it, as any
> Debian contributor aware of the issue is bound to do. This can keep
> the package from being in a Debian release.
>
> The formal policy is at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
> Be sure to also read the relevant parts of the less formal
> "packaging standards and best practises" in the right column of
> http://www.debian.org/devel/
>
>
> If you were to go forward with this, "right of use" of the
> debian-openoffice mailing list could be a bone of contention, but I'm
> sure we can work out a compromise; either Rene (and other
> LibreOffice-in-Debian packagers) take the time to recognise (and
> ignore?) the "Apache OpenOffice" related content on this ML, or maybe
> you'd be willing to use a to-be-created debian-apache-openoffice or
> debian-aoo-maintainers mailing list instead? Hint: creating an
> @lists.alioth.debian.org ML is easier than creating an
> @lists.debian.org ML.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature