[Slackbuilds-users] LibreOffice vs libreoffice (confusing, too vague)

[Christoph Willing]

On 8/4/23 13:50, dchmelik at gmail.com wrote:
> It's confusing there's both LibreOffice and libreoffice packages when 
> one is basically a binary repackaging.  As such, why wasn't package 
> naming format followed like the different calibre, calibre-bin, 
> palemoon, palemoon-bin, etc.?

I don't know if there's any particular reason for not following that 
format. Similarly, no particular reason to follow that format either. 
I'm not aware of any rule or convention to use that format.

I can see the attraction of adding "-bin"; nevertheless the README of 
LibreOffice very clearly states that it builds from source; the README 
of libreoffice very clearly states that it repackages official binaries. 
We all read the READMEs don't we?

Historically, when LibreOffice was added to the repo, libreoffice had 
already existed for some time. To follow the *-bin format, we would have 
had to rename libreoffice as libreoffice-bin and then add libreoffice. 
Of course that could have been done if there was an established 
convention to do so, but there was no such convention back then in Jan 2016.

As for palemoon, a binary repacking named palemoon already existed for 
some time before being renamed to palemoon-bin in May 2018, shortly 
before a build from source palemoon was added in Jun 2018. I believe 
this was the first[1] SlackBuild to use the "-bin" suffix to denote a 
binary repackaging, so impossible to use as an exemplar for 
LibreOffice/libreoffice in 2016.

The calibre SlackBuild was added in 2010 with calibre-bin added in Jul 
2019 - again too late to use as an examplar for LibreOffice.

Perhaps those *-bin SlackBuilds should have followed the existing 
convention provided 2 years earlier by Libreoffice/libreoffice - also 
Blender/blender 3 years earlier in Aug 2015.

chris


[1] there was actually a "haskell-binary" that was removed in 2012.