On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:32:39PM +0200, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
     Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
     
     > From what I understood, no. Libreoffice seems to expect the tarball in a
     > special location, and the libreoffice build system takes care of unpacking it.
     > But I am not a 100% sure whether the patching we do is needed or not;
     > maybe everything would compile with the unchanged tarball. One of the problems
     > is that the patching changes dates and causes an "autoreconf" (or similar)
     > after unpacking anyway, so part of the /bin/sh-patching is reverted.
     
     I think we should try hard to not make Libreoffice depend on
     Autoconf/Automake; it???s always a good idea to avoid it, but even more so
     here given the build time and size of the thing.  :-)
     
     Does that seem doable?
     
     Thanks for the great progress on this!
     
Libreoffice is big and messy.  But it works (sort of) and a lot of people like it.

Obviously any exercise in Free Software is "doable" (we have the source code!) 
but, my experience in packaging for Guix tells me that it can be very easy to
fall into the trap of making changes to the upstream packages which effectively
forks them.  Then we become the maintainer of a forked package.

J'

     

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.