OpenOffice naming

I opened the file to check what I could get from OO.org:
ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/README-all.h
tml

openoffice2 is without binaries.
openoffice2-bin is with binaries but for Suse.

My questions:
1) Is the first item for NetBSD but for compilation on my
own?
2) If the second item is for Suse why it is not said on
related page:
ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/chat/ekg/REA
DME.html

I think "Suse sign" (word(s)) should be attached
to description fields
in README-all.html as well. All suse apps should be
manifested in this
way.

I'd suggest also changing "bin" part in the names
for "suse" (e.g.
openoffice-suse-x.y.z). "Bin" tells that the thing
is in binary form
(ok, it is) for NetBSD.

Regards,
p2o2

--
Przemysław (p2o2) Pawełczyk <pp_o2o2.pl>
The LearNBSD Project: http://pp.kv.net.pl
The LearNBSD Project Forum: http://www.p2o2.fora.pl/

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, PrzemysÅ~Baw PaweÅ~Bczyk wrote:

> I opened the file to check what I could get from
OO.org:
>
ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/README-all.h
tml
>
> openoffice2 is without binaries.
> openoffice2-bin is with binaries but for Suse.
>
> My questions:
> 1) Is the first item for NetBSD but for compilation on
my own?

Yes, build from source using pkgsrc. Hopefully not specific
for NetBSD.

> 2) If the second item is for Suse why it is not said on
related page:
>
ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/chat/ekg/REA
DME.html 

(Wrong URL.)

Yes, the DESCR should add a sentence saying "This
package contains
pre-built binaries provided by OpenOffice.org." or
something like that.

But it is not specific to SuSE as the same package can
provide prebuilt 
binaries for Solaris also.

Also not specific for this package, but in some cases we
have provided 
-bin packages that actually provided prebuilt packages built
on NetBSD for 
NetBSD (so not Linux compat).

> I think "Suse sign" (word(s)) should be
attached to description fields
> in README-all.html as well. All suse apps should be
manifested in this
> way.
> 
> I'd suggest also changing "bin" part in the
names for "suse" (e.g.
> openoffice-suse-x.y.z). "Bin" tells that the
thing is in binary form
> (ok, it is) for NetBSD.

One of the plans is for Linux binaries to not be
"SuSE" only. Work has 
been done to use Debian Linux packages for Linux (on NetBSD)
also. And I 
have used some Linux binaries via pkgsrc on my PkgLinux.

In addition, several of the "-bin" packages have
nothing to do with 
"Linux" (or SuSE Linux) specifically, as they may
provide prebuilt 
binaries for BSD/OS or Solaris for example.

In most (hopefully all) cases the packages' brief comment
should indicate 
that is a "binary package". I do see that some
DESCR files do need to be 
updated to also indicate about this.

It has been mentioned to you a few times about using correct
mailing 
lists. You may get better results and reach a more defined
audience by 
choosing the correct mailing lists.

  Jeremy C. Reed

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:38:52 -0500 (CDT)
"Jeremy C. Reed" <reedreedmedia.net> wrote:

> > openoffice2 is without binaries.
> > 1) Is the first item for NetBSD but for
compilation on my own?
> Yes, build from source using pkgsrc. Hopefully not
specific for
> NetBSD.

May we expect oo.o for i386 in binary form?

> > 2) If the second item is for Suse why it is not
said on related
> > page:
> Yes, the DESCR should add a sentence saying "This
package contains
> pre-built binaries provided by OpenOffice.org." or
something like
> that.
>
> But it is not specific to SuSE as the same package can
provide
> prebuilt binaries for Solaris also.

What I'd like to have are packages for i386 clearly
described
"for Linux emulation only".

> One of the plans is for Linux binaries to not be
"SuSE" only. Work
> has been done to use Debian Linux packages for Linux
(on NetBSD)
> also. And I have used some Linux binaries via pkgsrc on
my PkgLinux.

Another issue I was acquainted with only after I asked in
different
matter. Couldn't such information about interesting works be
more
available to users?

> In most (hopefully all) cases the packages' brief
comment should
> indicate that is a "binary package".

But this is not enough. Add, please, "for Linux and
Solaris".

> It has been mentioned to you a few times about using
correct mailing
> lists. You may get better results and reach a more
defined audience
> by choosing the correct mailing lists.

I try but have you seen the number of your mailing lists? I
touched
subjects belonging to documentation, www, pkg, and usage
categories.
What mailing list do you suggest I should address?

Regards,
p2o2
--
Przemysław (p2o2) Pawełczyk <pp_o2o2.pl>
The LearNBSD Project: http://pp.kv.net.pl
The LearNBSD Project Forum: http://www.p2o2.fora.pl/