Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 5, 2023 18:22 UTC (Mon) by mb (subscriber, #50428)
In reply to: Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice by rahulsundaram
Parent article: Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

> By saying yes, you mean you agree that it is not abandon-ware.

No, I don't?
Red Hat will abandon LibreOffice.
The users will have to live with a second class solution provided by LibreOffice themselves.
Packaging is *not* just a simple "put upstream program into an RPM". Packaging is about integration. And that doesn't happen with Flatpaks from non-distro repos. That's what makes Flatpaks second class solutions.

Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 5, 2023 18:46 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (10 responses)

> Red Hat will abandon LibreOffice.

That doesn't make the software itself abandonware obviously. It has an active upstream which maintains it.

> Packaging is *not* just a simple "put upstream program into an RPM". Packaging is about integration.

I am aware and I also wrote this a long time back -> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/...

tldr: In most cases, such integration changes should be contributed upstream and not kept as local patches and therefore everyone can benefit regardless of the delivery mechanism. Red Hat did that certainly when they were active and hopefully that can still be done by others -> https://meeksfamily.uk/~michael/blog/2023-05-15-caolan.html

Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 5, 2023 19:28 UTC (Mon) by cyperpunks (subscriber, #39406) [Link] (4 responses)

> That doesn't make the software itself abandonware obviously. It has an active upstream which maintains it.

Well, a project without native RPM packages are like a car factory that produce all the parts but choose to ship a bicycle, it don't make any sense.

When all parts have been carefully crafted and produced over many years you have out the parts together and create a actual car.
For this work you need specialist in assembly engineering, it might be expensive, however without it the initial work done is just theoretically and of very limited value. It's the native packaging which turn the various pieces into something of value.

Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 5, 2023 21:11 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (3 responses)

> Well, a project without native RPM packages are like a car factory that produce all the parts but choose to ship a bicycle, it don't make any sense.

LibreOffice as a project certainly produces RPM packages (in addition to Flatpak, Deb and many other alternatives) as you can see from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download-libreoffice/. Red Hat just has chosen not to include LibreOffice in their commerical release going forward since apparently not enough of their customers are looking for anymore. Your analogy doesn't seem to apply here.

Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 6, 2023 6:38 UTC (Tue) by cyperpunks (subscriber, #39406) [Link] (2 responses)

That's great, why not maintain those inside Fedora and avoid all this drama?

Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 6, 2023 9:38 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

>That's great, why not maintain those inside Fedora and avoid all this drama?

If you read the thread, within a short time, multiple people have stepped up to maintain it within Fedora.

Red Hat dropping support for LibreOffice

Posted Jun 6, 2023 10:33 UTC (Tue) by cyperpunks (subscriber, #39406) [Link]

Good news, thanks!

upstream first

Posted Jun 5, 2023 19:33 UTC (Mon) by mikebenden (guest, #74702) [Link] (4 responses)

While I vehemently agree (and advocate, wherever applicable) for relevant and useful changes to be pushed upstream (in downstream's own best interest, most of the time), I am also very concerned about the trend of pushing flatpaks (and snaps, and other "app-store-like" "solutions") to replace widely used software that used to be packaged by distributions.

While collecting useful changes and features in one place (upstream) is to be encouraged, distributions serve the essential function of safeguarding their users' interests whenever they diverge from those of upstream.

Upstream might (not LO specifically, but in general) consider adding various kinds of "telemetry" and other anti-patterns designed to further "monetize" their user base. I very much rely on my distro's packagers of such (otherwise useful) software to rip out the telemetry and other anti-features on my behalf!

If my distro is only there to serve as a "carrier" for third-party flatpaks, why bother using one at all?
I might as well "just buy a Mac" like all the other normies... :)

upstream first

Posted Jun 5, 2023 21:15 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

> I am also very concerned about the trend of pushing flatpaks (and snaps, and other "app-store-like" "solutions") to replace widely used software that used to be packaged by distributions.

Flatpak doesn't automatically imply Flathub or any specific remote. Fedora itself produces its own Flatpaks from RPM packages directly for example.

https://fedoramagazine.org/an-introduction-to-fedora-flat...

If you are using Fedora Silverblue for instance, this is the recommended way to install packages including distro ones.

upstream first

Posted Jun 6, 2023 9:09 UTC (Tue) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (2 responses)

If you don't trust upstream, why use their software in the first place?

upstream first

Posted Jun 6, 2023 11:55 UTC (Tue) by mikebenden (guest, #74702) [Link] (1 responses)

Because they suck slightly less than the alternative, at least for now?

Take Firefox, for example (another program where "flatpak" has been insistently mentioned here and elsewhere :)

And, in the general case, it's not even that I don't trust them *now*. It's that if we all end up with "stub" distros whose only purpose is to run "vendor" supplied flatpaks, the vendor's incentive to start misbehaving will become irresistible as time passes.

upstream first

Posted Jun 6, 2023 13:45 UTC (Tue) by joib (subscriber, #8541) [Link]

> And, in the general case, it's not even that I don't trust them *now*. It's that if we all end up with "stub" distros whose only purpose is to run "vendor" supplied flatpaks, the vendor's incentive to start misbehaving will become irresistible as time passes.

It's not like if a distro decides to trust upstream to provide software X via flathub (or whatever it's called) then that decision is set in stone for all eternity. Distros could very well adopt a "trust but verify" attitude, and if upstream starts to misbehave the distro can strip out the dirty bits and package it themselves (be it in rpm's/deb's, a distro-maintained flathub instance, or whatever, doesn't per se matter for this discussion).