Bug 53904 - Readme file -- remove mention of LibreOffice 3.3 and review all platform requirements.
Summary: Readme file -- remove mention of LibreOffice 3.3 and review all platform requ...
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Documentation (show other bugs)
(earliest affected)
Hardware: All All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
Depends on:
Reported: 2012-08-22 02:36 UTC by Marc Pare
Modified: 2019-12-18 19:24 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:
Regression By:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marc Pare 2012-08-22 02:36:38 UTC
The readme file has not been reviewed in a while and still makes mention of the older version of LibreOffice 3.3. (* The following suggestions mention line numbers from the file at [http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/readlicense_oo/docs/readme/readme.xrm])

Line 160: "The desktop-integration directory also contains a package named libreoffice3.3-freedesktop-menus-3.3.1.noarch.rpm (or similar)..." 

Suggest to change to "The desktop-integration directory also contains a package named libreoffice3.X-freedesktop-menus-3.X.X.noarch.rpm (or similar)..."

Reason: this will remove mention of the older LibreOffice v.3.3 which no longer applies. A generic naming scheme is probably better.

Line 20 "For latest updates to this readme file, see http://www.libreoffice.org/welcome/readme.html". 

Problem: The website file was a shorter version of the installer package readme and was not being updated. Line 20 is erroneous as there were no updated text to read at the website file. NOTE: I (Marc) have since deleted the website "Readme" page -- I can put it back up on the website if there is a reason to put it back there.

Suggestion: Delete this line and not reference to the website (the page no longer exists anyways). There does not seem to be any reason to have the readme (installer package) being updated and then the website version having to be updated or vice versa. Let me know if you think otherwise and I will put the website page back up. The only reason I could see of having the readme on the website is perhaps for archival purposes, but I still do not see this as a good reason. It would mean having to monitor changes in the installer readme's and updating the website version.

Line 27: "If you appreciate their efforts, and would like to ensure that LibreOffice continues to be available far into the future, please consider contributing to the project - see http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ for details. Everyone can make a contribution of some kind."

Problem: this line points to "http://http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/. Not sure why it would point to a "The Document Foundation" webpage when we are talking about the LibreOffice project. It should point to a LibreOffice webpage.

Suggest: make this point to "http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/" This page has a more attractive look and has a better breakdown of where a user can apply her/his talents. There is also a link to donate $$$ on this page as well.

Line 234: "Our system for reporting, tracking and solving bugs is currently BugZilla, kindly hosted at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/. We encourage all users to feel entitled and welcome to report bugs that may arise on your particular platform. Energetic reporting of bugs is one of the most important contributions that the user community can make to the ongoing development and improvement of LibreOffice."

Problem: There is no mention of our "Bug Submission Assistant" (BSA) which, for a user, may prove easier to manage than the bugzilla submission page.

Suggest add sentence: "LibreOffice also hosts a very friendly "Bug Submission Assistant (BSA)" which some of you may find more friendly to use than our regular bug submission page. The BSA page may be found at https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/bug/."

Lines 227-230: "The main support page http://www.libreoffice.org/support/ offers various possibilities for help with LibreOffice. Your question may have already been answered - check the Community Forum at http://www.documentfoundation.org/nabble/ or search the archives of the 'users@libreoffice.org' mailing list at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/users/. Alternatively, you can send in your questions to users@libreoffice.org. If you like to subscribe to the list (to get email responses), send an empty mail to: users+subscribe@libreoffice.org..."

Problem: There is no mention of the Ask LibreOffice website.

Suggestion We should modify to: "... Your question may have already been answered - check the Community Forum at http://www.documentfoundation.org/nabble/, search the answers to questions on the Ask LibreOffice website at http://ask.libreoffice.org/ or search the archives of the 'users@libreoffice.org' mailing list at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/users/..."


Lines 240 and 244 mention the link to the webpage: http://www.libreoffice.org/contribution/

Suggest In the context of a user "contributing", I would suggest that using the real webpage link name "http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/" is more appropriate as it portrays a more powerful image of a user getting involved in the project. The word "contribution" just seems too passive of a word.

Line 273: "Portions Copyright 1998, 1999 James Clark. Portions Copyright 1996, 1998 Netscape Communications Corporation."

Question: Is this necessary? Why are these here? What do these copyright mentions have to do with the readme?

Suggest: While we are fixing problems with the readme, we should also review and update (if needed) the "System requirements" for Mac, Window, Linux. This may require that some devs take a quick look at the readme file sections to make sure that nothing has changed from the point of view of system requirements.


Comment 1 Rainer Bielefeld Retired 2012-08-22 05:30:55 UTC
Suggestions (by line numbers)

178. "Difficulties displaying 3D objects can often be solved by deactivating the option "Use OpenGL" under 'Tools - Options - LOdev - View - 3D view'"

Is that really true? In Bugzilla I found 4 Bugs containing "OpenGL" + "disable". but not 1 single bug where OpbnGL disabling has been recommended, and so no one that that might fix anything.

199. Type "documention" should be corrected

218. MAPI ....
Is that really true? In Bugzilla I found 7 hits for bugs containing MAPI in a comment, mostly somewhere in a dump. I do not believe that that is enough for an own chapter in the readme. Additionally I doubt that those hints can be useful for anybody. 

223. Accessibility
Correct URL is <http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/accessibility/> (but forwarding from link in readme works fine).

228. http://www.libreoffice.org/support/
Correct URL is<http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/> (forward works fine)

228. http://www.documentfoundation.org/nabble/
URL does not exist
A hint that questions can be asked at <http://ask.libreoffice.org/questions/> is missing

229. http://www.libreoffice.org/faq/
Correct URL is <http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/faq/>, forward works fine

234. "Our system for reporting, tracking and solving ..."
Pleas add: "You can reach a Bug Submissions Assistant via LibreOffice menu 'Help -> Feedback'

242. .... http://www.libreoffice.org/develop/ ...
The current URL is <http://www.libreoffice.org/developers-2/>, forward works fine

244. (and others): ... http://www.libreoffice.org/contribution/ ...
The current URL is <http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/>, forward works fine

copyright: I think that hint is not useful
Comment 2 Uwe Altmann 2013-01-21 19:43:26 UTC
c.f. need of adaption of README because change of system requirements for Mac in 4.0: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59669
Comment 3 A (Andy) 2015-02-13 11:10:28 UTC
I tried to test it with LO  Where can I find the current Readme-File?
Comment 4 QA Administrators 2016-02-21 08:37:19 UTC Comment hidden (spam)
Comment 5 Thomas Hackert 2016-10-05 14:34:00 UTC
Hello Marc, *,
I cannot confirm your bug w.r.t. mentioning LO version 3.3 in the readme any longer, though the welcome/readme site still mentions an 4.x version .... :( Aside from that, there are several paragraphs that needs to be checked / rewritten (without line numbering, sorry ... :( ):

- GNOME a requirement for LO? I have nearly never installed GNOME but still am able to install and use LO ... ;)
- other requirements should be corrected as well
- Why should I close all running programs? Am I missing something? There should be either a short explanation or this sentence should be removed ... ;)
- "sudo" is not installed on all systems. Should be mentioned in the readme and a correct alternative "su -c 'dpkg -i ..." or "su -c "rpm -i ..." etc. should be added.
- The paragraph for other RPM based distros is missing "sudo" / "su" in front of the command.
- The readme mentions an install script in the top level directory, which is not there.
- Aside from changed menu entries ("Tools - Options - View - 3D view" is now "Tools - Options - View - Graphics Out") other parts should be checked, if they are still valid,

etc. But I think your bug about the mentioned version number should be closed and an new one for "readme file - rewriting needed to fit today's information" (or something like that ... ;) ) should be opened ... ;)
Comment 6 QA Administrators 2017-10-23 14:00:07 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete, spam)
Comment 7 Roman Kuznetsov 2019-03-30 22:22:46 UTC
Olivier, what do you think about this bug? It's actual now or already not?
Comment 8 Buovjaga 2019-12-18 19:24:21 UTC

If someone wants to improve it, but doesn't want to download the whole source, feel free to use direct editing in gerrit: