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

Re: comment on "User Review of Debian GNU/Linux"



On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:40:08AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > While I can appreciate using limited resources to their fullest potential, my 
> > main issue with the no updates to Woody policy would have to do with 
> > OpenOffice. IMHO OpenOffice is as significant to Linux on the desktop as 
> > Apache is to Linux as a server, and I think making an exception in this one 
> > case would make a great deal of difference for anyone considering using Woody 
> > as a desktop installation. This of course could be another resource
> > issue. 
> 
> A very subjective pick.  Since it's in contrib, and not in main, it is
> not officially part of Debian.  Moreover, it wasn't even packaged at
> the time of woody's release.  

Yes.  We are working on a move away from the non-free JDK dependency as we
have time.

> It's hugely complex, so probably even an upgrade couldn't be provided
> without requiring a whole cascading set of other packages.  

Well, actually we make sure that the packages will build without
modification on a Woody system, and the only packages that are needed that
are not in Woody (JDK and debhelper with a small fix) are build-time
dependencies only.  The binary packages do not need any additional
dependencies to be installed.

> Finally, I'm not sure it's even very mature as a package.  Just glancing
> at it I noticed a number of problems, such as circular dependancies
> between openoffice.org and openoffice.org-debian-files.  

Yes, OOo is fairly young (1.0 was released last May).  The particualar
problem that you mention is acutally an apt bug (#172339).  Yes, there are
other problems - the majority of which are already fixed for the 1.1 release
- but no more than most packages of this size that are so young.  

The number of open bug reports in the BTS is also proportional to the size
of the user base and program itself.

Chris

Attachment: pgpVnYYLvTUlE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: