Subject: Re: OpenOffice naming
To: Jeremy C. Reed <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UHJ6ZW15c8WCYXcgUGF3ZcWCY3p5aw==?= <>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 04/20/2007 11:04:28
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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

Przemysław (p2o2) Pawełczyk <>
The LearN@BSD Project:
The LearN@BSD Project Forum:

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)