Package Details: hoffice-viewer

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: hoffice-viewer
Description: Office document viewer for Linux
Upstream URL:
Keywords: doc docx hwp hwpx ppt pptx xls xlsx
Licenses: custom:hoffice-viewer
Submitter: tempuser
Maintainer: tempuser
Last Packager: tempuser
Votes: 9
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2021-12-08 04:02 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2021-12-08 11:54 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

esjeon commented on 2021-12-13 13:59 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-17 01:20 (UTC) by esjeon)

@tempuser About the MR, hol' my beer. I'm gonna talk with Hancom first. Their license is not covering personal use and redistribution at all. Also, it's not official release, as the package URL is intentionally hidden. I found the link like an year ago when this topic first brought up, and ignored it for a reason.

EDIT(dec 17): I haven' received any responses from Hancom.

tempuser commented on 2021-12-07 23:51 (UTC)

That would be desirable too.

Jhyub commented on 2021-12-07 13:54 (UTC)

please consider renaming license.txt to LICENSE, it is the convention and will let third party siftware pick it up. it would be especially more important because the license of this software is uncommon.

tempuser commented on 2021-12-07 11:56 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-07 11:58 (UTC) by tempuser)

According to this link, the official viewer's package name is hoffice-viewer, and the version is This package seems to have removed the notorious webkitgtk dependency. As a note, the package may be legally obtained through the command

wget --header="Host:" --header="Referer:"

Here is the new revised PKGBUILD and license.txt for your convenience.

To rename a package, create a package with the name hoffice-viewer, and file a merge request on the page of this package to merge the comments and votes.

chillycuz commented on 2021-08-22 06:58 (UTC)

I just also wanted to thank you for making this package. You have saved me a lifetime worth of rebooting into my Windows install.

Jhyub commented on 2021-08-18 13:23 (UTC) (edited on 2021-08-18 13:24 (UTC) by Jhyub)

There are a lot of examples that doesn't have the suffix -bin as a closed-source software, but the one that comes to my mind is intellij-idea-ultimate-edition.

Jhyub commented on 2021-08-18 13:22 (UTC)

@alerque I think it is better to keep its name this way. The -bin suffix makes me assume that a non-bin version exists (= source code is open), and I believe that this would apply to others too.

alerque commented on 2021-08-18 13:12 (UTC)

@ejsoen I declined the orphan request but I personally do suggest you should still go about renaming this to -bin. Technically since source isn't available the suffix is optional optional under current guidelines but it is still not a bad idea to correctly set expectations up front. If you setup a new package with the right name (you can even start with a clone of this history and change the remote / edit the package), then this one can be merged into it to bring over votes and comments.

esjeon commented on 2021-08-06 00:11 (UTC) (edited on 2021-08-06 00:12 (UTC) by esjeon)

To whomever filed orphan request for not appending -bin in the package name:

  1. That's not what orphan request is for. Read the help message.

  2. The source code is not available, and -bin is not necessary in this case. From the AUR submission guidelines: "Packages that use prebuilt deliverables, when the sources are available, must use the -bin suffix."

  3. You wrote your comment while I was on a business trip, and deleted it before I can reply. That's not how you participate in the community.