1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 06/05/12 09:06, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
5 |
> Am Samstag, 5. Mai 2012, 23:15:46 schrieb Markos Chandras: |
6 |
>> On 05/05/2012 08:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
7 |
>>> On Sat, 5 May 2012 20:40:47 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
>>>> there's a growing culture of libreoffice extensions, and (with |
11 |
>>>> the help of an eclass prepared by scarabeus) it would be nice to |
12 |
>>>> get some of them into the portage tree. Now we have to decide |
13 |
>>>> where to put them. |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> Suggestion: new category office-ext |
16 |
>>>> |
17 |
>>>> What do you think? |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> office-plugins, to follow suit. |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> This may be confusing as people would expect these plugins to work |
22 |
>> with both {open,libre}office packages. If these plugins are just for |
23 |
>> libreoffice then I would prefer app-libreoffice like other people have |
24 |
>> already suggested |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I've collected information and the extensions (should) work with any office |
27 |
> variant, openoffice and libreoffice. To be more precise, they should work with |
28 |
> anything that uses the so-called "uno bridge". |
29 |
> |
30 |
> This is why I like the new category "office-plugins" best... and would like to |
31 |
> implement that one. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Any additional objections? |
34 |
|
35 |
I prefer app-plugins even if it is broader. |
36 |
|
37 |
lu |
38 |
|
39 |
- -- |
40 |
|
41 |
Luca Barbato |
42 |
Gentoo/linux |
43 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
44 |
|
45 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
46 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) |
47 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
48 |
|
49 |
iEYEARECAAYFAk+myw0ACgkQ6Ex4woTpDjTVJwCfZjNrwt9WXj6JlELPLwF60kj2 |
50 |
wl4An3EM5GaEvUTsVRbTlVIP+puoQz35 |
51 |
=nn8m |
52 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |