Ubuntu - "don't install LibreOffice manually from the ".deb" files"

users
#1

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LibreOffice

Ubuntu's site states:

quote: "If you're using Ubuntu, don't install LibreOffice manually from the ".deb" files available at LibreOffice.org <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LibreOffice.org>. Otherwise you will not get automatic updates & upgrades when new versions come out and you will be missing the integration to Ubuntu. Using official packages also ensures you get the best assistance from the community as this is the recommended method to install & use LibreOffice in Ubuntu"

They want you to use the PPA link or their repository for the latest updates.

Actually, I found that the OOo web site updated quicker and more often than Ubuntu's repository for their version of OOo. I do not think they will be any faster with LibreOffice updates.

Yes, it will be much easier to keep up-to-date when LibreOffice is in its repository and then find that there is an update shown in the daily, weekly, etc., update schedule that you set in your update manager. But there will be a time lag between LibreOffice's updates on their web site and Ubuntu's repository. So, the "no not install manually" statement may be taken the wrong way be some users as if there is something wrong with LibreOffice's own downloads.

#2

Plus the fact that there are bugs in the Ubuntu version of LibO that are
not present in the official version.

Alex

#3

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LibreOffice

Ubuntu's site states:

quote: "If you're using Ubuntu, don't install LibreOffice manually from
the ".deb" files available at LibreOffice.org
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LibreOffice.org>. Otherwise you will not get
automatic updates & upgrades when new versions come out and you will be
missing the integration to Ubuntu. Using official packages also ensures
you get the best assistance from the community as this is the
recommended method to install & use LibreOffice in Ubuntu"

They want you to use the PPA link or their repository for the latest
updates.

Hi there - I initially wrote the above documentation. Using the PPA is
only needed for 10.04LTS and 10.10.

It also states:
"A PPA is always considered a third-party application and unfit for
production purposes (as far as official commercial support goes),
however LibreOffice is becoming part of Ubuntu in April 2011, and this
PPA is the source for such official version. Make sure you test this
appropriately if you intend to use this in a production environment
under Ubuntu 10.04 LTS or 10.10. "

Actually, I found that the OOo web site updated quicker and more often
than Ubuntu's repository for their version of OOo. I do not think they
will be any faster with LibreOffice updates.

Of course - LibO has a different release shedule than LibO. Only stable
Ubuntu releases will have any LibO version. The PPA is considered a
development version. When LibO is officially released in Ubuntu (April
this year), there may be a "LibO-stable" PPA and a "LibO-dev" PPA or
else - Mozilla packages are managed in a similar way.

Yes, it will be much easier to keep up-to-date when LibreOffice is in
its repository and then find that there is an update shown in the daily,
weekly, etc., update schedule that you set in your update manager.

Right now there is not an important delay that I can see between the
LibO releases and the PPA. Canonical has assigned staff to it and bugs
are being worked on, assigned, etc. The situation is improving. So in
practical terms, there is no significant "lag" between the PPA and .deb
packages.

But

there will be a time lag between LibreOffice's updates on their web site
and Ubuntu's repository. So, the "no not install manually" statement
may be taken the wrong way be some users as if there is something wrong
with LibreOffice's own downloads.

It's one of those golden rules in most GNU/Linux distributions. In
Ubuntu it's even more present: USE A PACKAGE MANAGER ANY AND EVERY TIME
YOU CAN. .debs are the last choice.

Even the fact someone would use the PPA is considered by far a more
advanced technical level than just going to the Ubuntu Software Center.

The advantages of having the latest version of LibO right to the minute
compared to the problems and maintenance .debs may generate really
justify using the PPA (for 10.10 and 10.04LTS).

Cheers,

Fabián

- --
LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca
de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/

#4

Hi Alex,

What bugs exactly ? It would be very useful to include references or
details when you make such comments.

Tomorrow is "Ubuntu bug day" for LibO and OOo. I'd welcome any help
reporting/reproducing any LibO bugs in Ubuntu (and vice versa), as well
as "upstream" at Freedesktop.org. If you're talking about packaging
bugs, why, yes, it's not perfect yet. Some bugs are also only now coming
up when people use stuff like Unity.

see:
http://www.ubuntu-user.com/Online/Blogs/Amber-Graner-You-in-Ubuntu/You-re-Invited-This-Week-s-Ubuntu-Bug-Day-LibreOffice-and-OpenOffice

Cheers,

Fabián

- --
LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca
de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/

#5

What about the text that, if I read it correctly, LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org cannot be installed and run on the same machine? I know that with Ubuntu 10.10 that OOo 3.3 and LibreOffice 3.3 runs well on my desktop. The only problem is the default runtime application for the file formats. Sometimes OOo opens and other time LibreOffice opens depending on the file extension. One day soon, I may dump OOo altogether and just have LibreOffice on my Ubuntu desktop and Vista Laptop, but not now. I need to support OOo for my former clients that still call me, and others that have not switched over to LibreOffice yet.

Is there some problem with LibreOffice and OOo being installed on the same Ubuntu Desktop? Is there some problem that is coming up with the new desktop manager in Ubuntu 11.04 that does not like both on the same machine? I do not know if I even like what I have read about the new desktop manager for 11.04, so it will be interesting.

I know that you think that installing from the .deb files is the "last resort", but sometimes it is just "easier" than waiting for the repositories to get the next version of a package to install. I like my update manager for Ubuntu, but sometimes I do not want to wait.

#6

Please edit out the less relevant parts in replies you post. :slight_smile:

What about the text that, if I read it correctly, LibreOffice and
OpenOffice.org cannot be installed and run on the same machine?  I know that
with Ubuntu 10.10 that OOo 3.3 and LibreOffice 3.3 runs well on my desktop.
 The only problem is the default runtime application for the file formats.

This relates to the desktop-integration package and is easily enough
controlled by modifying the Nautilus Properties of one file of each
type you want to open in LO vs. OOo.

#7

Using the PPA also ensures that any debugging is being done on the
appropriate repo. As I see it .debs are for developers - Toochain to
Alpha...

See here for more info on LO/Ubuntu PPA and bugs:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Frustrated-Base-Users-Errors-in-Base-3-3-OO-3-2-work-beautifully-td2451377.html

#8

Hi :slight_smile:

I think editing posts can lead to confusions about the main thrust of what was
being discussed. In at least 1 case i have seen it used to reverse the meaning
of the original post.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#9

Oh, well in that case, be sure to include every possible message in
all threads so we can clutter up the email list, raise the bandwidth
and make long and confusing posts with alternating top-posts mixed
with bottom-posts, like this one.

Let's not strive for clarity or brevity - no matter what the cost. We
can all emulate Microsoft and spread the FUD far and wide.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

</sarcasm>

#10

MR. ZW, let's play nice now, OK? :slight_smile:

So regarding the thread of substance, what is DIFFERENT about the Ubuntu vs.
Deb, vs "official" LO application? I didn't think that the Canonical folks
MODIFY anything, correct?

I think that "keeping Ubuntu version separate from all others" seems to be
strangely counterproductive; being that the latest Ubuntu is both featuring
and promoting LO... Not that separate is bad, but having independent bug
resources and not always keeping "in sync" seems so carbon-paper and manual
typewriter... :wink:

#11

MR. ZW, let's play nice now, OK?  :)

Depends on whom I'm playing with - with you, no problem.

So regarding the thread of substance, what is DIFFERENT about the Ubuntu vs.
Deb, vs "official" LO application? I didn't think that the Canonical folks
MODIFY anything, correct?

Typically the Linux distribution builders repackage the apps that are
included with their distro, usually to make sure that they all play
nice together (like us). This means that there will be some
(hopefully VERY) slight differences between the TDF .debs, Debian's
apt package and Ubuntu's app package. Sometimes the differences are
just that one is newer (almost always, in this case, TDF's).

However, one important such difference is that the installation
procedure is different (duh). In Ubuntu's case, you can use Synaptic
to *uninstall* the TDF installation, but not to install it. I don't
use Debian so I can't speak for is, but as Ubuntu is based on Debian,
I imagine there are similarities.

I think that  "keeping Ubuntu version separate from all others" seems to be
strangely counterproductive; being that the latest Ubuntu is both featuring
and promoting LO...  Not that separate is bad, but having independent bug
resources and not always keeping "in sync" seems so carbon-paper and manual
typewriter... :wink:

Again, this has to do with making sure everything works together.
Normally, a distro's "version" of an independently sourced app is
caught up in short order. (Actually, with CentOS that wasn't true,
but as an enterprise distro, they are quite stringent about what goes
in and what does not, and more often than not the latest and greatest
was not included without a substantial delay and thorough testing, if
at all.)

#12

But if you use TBird for email and not Evolution and you want to use the TBird addressbook as an address data source you HAVE to use the manual install from the LO website. The repository version is missing this vital integration....

#13

The major major difference is that the ppa version does NOT enable the user to use any address book source other than Evolution. Never has done, even with Open Office. A major mistake on the behalf of Canonical IMHO...