GNU bug report logs - #73439
[PATCH 00/10] Update libreoffice to its latest version.

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Nicolas Graves <ngraves <at> ngraves.fr>

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:23:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #44 received at 73439 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Graves <ngraves <at> ngraves.fr>, 73439 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#73439] [PATCH 00/10] Update libreoffice to its latest
 version.
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 19:03:53 +0200
Am Dienstag, dem 24.09.2024 um 16:29 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Graves:
> On 2024-09-23 20:35, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> 
> > Am Montag, dem 23.09.2024 um 14:15 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Graves:
> > > This patch series updates libreoffice to its latest version. I
> > > used
> > > local builds of derivations with ccache
> > > (https://issues.guix.gnu.org/68315) to test developping and
> > > updating
> > > a big package incrementally. Some commits can be squashed, but I
> > > think we should at least keep separate 24.2.0.3, 24.2.6.2,
> > > 24.8.1.2.
> > > It also adds an updater for the libreoffice package.
> > Why those steps?  Should we perhaps have multiple packages with
> > some older versions for the time being?
> 
> 24.2.0.3 is a big update which adds packages and substitutions, I
> think it's good to keep those changes in one commit.
Fair enough.

> On the libreoffice website, they have only two libreoffice downloads:
> https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download-libreoffice
> 
> 24.8.1.2 is the current stable release
> 24.2.6.2 is the previous stable release (~= LTS)
> 
> I don't see libreoffice bringing tremendous changes from version to
> version, I'm not sure having two versions is necessary.
> 
> That said, it is very doable to have two with a -lts version.
I agree, having an LTS is probably enough.  So can we cut this short by
keeping the separate ones you mention and also keep 24.2.6.2 as the
LTS?

> > 
> > > Nicolas Graves (10):
> > >   import: Add %libreoffice-updater.
> > LGTM
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.0.3.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.1.2.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.2.2.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.3.2.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.4.2.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.5.2.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.2.6.2.
> > >   gnu: libreoffice: Update to 24.8.1.2.
> > >   gnu: hunspell-dictionaries: Update to  24.8.1.2.
> > As noted in the comment hunspell and libreoffice ought to be kept
> > in sync.  IIUC, this would mean updating hunspell-dictionaries in
> > lockstep with libreoffice on those intermediate steps as well, no?
> 
> I haven't delved that deep in this but I think it's not necessary.
> The reason is that they are mostly dictionaries whose updates are
> uncorrelated to what's happenning in libreoffice itself but rather
> edge cases in languages.  They are unlikely to break user experience,
> plus it will be for only a few commits.  At the end of the series
> seems fine to me.
Fair enough.

Cheers





This bug report was last modified 207 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.