Difference between revisions of "Talk:LibreOffice"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(libreoffice-still: re x2)
Line 57: Line 57:
::Less is more. How about [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=LibreOffice&curid=10633&diff=331718&oldid=331579]? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 14:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::Less is more. How about [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=LibreOffice&curid=10633&diff=331718&oldid=331579]? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 14:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes. Spot on. -- [[User:Marcvangend|Marcvangend]] ([[User talk:Marcvangend|talk]]) 07:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:06, 22 August 2014

High-contrast icons in LibreOffice

A short time ago I augmented the details on disabling the high-contrast icons (what the article refers to as "Windows 95" or "Windows 98" style icons), since for me, it wasn't enough to just disable the automatic high-constrast detection.

I found this out courtesy of the following entries in the LibreOffice Bugzilla; while I am sure anyone else here could find them just as easily, I wanted to note them here for the information of other contributors:

-- aexoxea (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Finnish spell checking section

I added a section but am not sure if it is the right place for it. What do you think?

-- olkkoo 23:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC+2)

If it's only spell checking you could move it as a subsection of LibreOffice#Spell checking and just rename it "Finnish". If it's more than just spell checking, you may leave it there but rename it to LibreOffice#Finnish aids or similar. -- Kynikos (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Unreadable text in menus and interface

This might be a bug and should then probably be filed somewhere else, but is related to the section on troubleshooting. My issue was this: Most, but not all, text in the menus and in the user interface was in an unreadable font - in English but with wrong symbols. Changing the system fonts as recommended in various places did not help. It turned out I had the language pack libreoffice-am (Amharic) installed by mistake. Removing this gave me back the intelligible menus. Version:

--Frepa (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


The comments on the following Arch bug report describes the situation with the libreoffice-fresh package, in advance of other package renaming and this page being updated:

N.B.: I am not involved with Arch libreoffice packaging or the above bug report; I'm just linking this info for interested parties.

-- aexoxea (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Re [1], right, the group name was changed. But is there reasoning for the change in description? -- Alad (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

They're both considered "stable" ("This is the first release from the 4.3 branch of Libreoffice which contains new features and program enhancements. As such the version is stable and is suitable for all users."[2]), so I think the old description was lacking, and the new one is more in line with the upstream philosophy. --Lonaowna (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but "conservative users" sounds odd, you could say that for all the "LTS" packages. Minor gripe, I know. -- Alad (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "conservative" isn't perfect either.. Maybe something like "more stable"... or something else, if you can think of something, please change it! I just think that "stable" gives the wrong impression that Fresh isn't stable it all. --Lonaowna (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've decided to simplify the current description: [3]. -- Alad (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I like it! That brings up another question.. Do you know why Fresh is a single package and Still a group of packages? It makes no sense if they're "equal" branches. --Lonaowna (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Good question. Perhaps because "still" was adapted from the old group? [4] -- Alad (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that "still" is the word you are looking for :P -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with the term "bleeding edge" to describe the fresh package. When you say bleeding edge, I think of unstable development builds without any guarantee. Some people I talked to in IRC seemed to agree. I think we should remove the "bleeding edge" bit and make clear fresh is a stable release on a branch to which new features may be added. -- Marcvangend (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Less is more. How about [5]? -- Alad (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Spot on. -- Marcvangend (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)