Bug 76069

Summary: Split esoteric/old format support to a separate package
Product: LibreOffice Reporter: lukasseon <1bfbebce-5df4-465d-9a37-5b7205438c69>
Component: LibreOfficeAssignee: Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs>
Status: NEW ---    
Severity: enhancement CC: 1bfbebce-5df4-465d-9a37-5b7205438c69, barta, cno, heiko.tietze, thomas.lendo
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
Crash report or crash signature: Regression By:
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 108254    

Description lukasseon 2014-03-12 10:39:06 UTC 
Number of LibreOffice's supported formats is growing, so in the future the main package would be very heavy. I propose tha support for some esoteric formats like:
* MS Office 6.0/95
* AppleWorks 6.0
* MacWrite Pro 1.5
* Write Now 4.0
* and dropped StarOffice 1x-5x
should be splitted up to a separate package
And this package would be named 'libreoffice-extra' or 'libreoffice-extraformats'.
LibreOffice should offer an installation of this package, but I'm open for ideas here.
Comment 1 tommy27 2014-03-12 18:25:26 UTC 
feature request. set status to NEW.
Comment 2 Urmas 2015-02-26 07:41:00 UTC 
MS Word 6 is not an esoteric format in any way. Also, what is the purpose of this at all?
Comment 3 lukasseon 2015-02-26 11:04:51 UTC 
(In reply to Urmas from comment #2)
> MS Word 6 is not an esoteric format in any way. Also, what is the purpose of
> this at all?

The matter is to decrease the size of LO main package. Along with esoteric formats I also mean those which are just very old, like MS Office 6.0/95 for example.
Comment 4 Thomas Lendo 2019-10-08 21:41:08 UTC 
I'm in favor of closing this bug report. This is a big effort for---what?--saving some kilobytes of disk space?

As long as LibreOffice are supporting file formats, they shouldn't be separated into extra packages (or extensions or something else).
Comment 5 Heiko Tietze 2019-10-09 08:02:00 UTC 
Not only some kB but less options, for example at save as. Would be nice to have a much more modular application but I'm afraid it's less effort to rewrite from scratch.

Anyway, no need for input from UX, fine if closed as WF.