(libreoffice) Clarify package update lagging behind software release and where to raise issues / questions

[pauby]

Description

I've updated the README*.md files for libreoffice. These should flow into the 'description` in the .nupspec file.

Note that how we add this info, the message and the formatting are all up for debate. I wanted to get something up here for discussion. Once agreed, I feel we should require any updates to a package to add this to the README files (perhaps by adding it to #1754).

Closes #1803.

Motivation and Context

Questions are still being asked via Disqus for many packages. As Disqus is generally not responded to it makes sense to clarify where questions and issues should be raised. Going forward we should add this to all packages.

How Has this Been Tested?

I haven't tested this as it was an update to Markdown.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Migrated package (a package has been migrated from another repository)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this repository.
• My change requires a change to documentation (this usually means the notes in the description of a package).
• I have updated the documentation accordingly (this usually means the notes in the description of a package).
• All files are up to date with the latest Contributing Guidelines
• The added/modified package passed install/uninstall in the chocolatey test environment.
• The changes only affect a single package (not including meta package).

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[pauby]

This looks to be a build automation issue.

[AdmiringWorm]

Just some formatting issues that needs to be fixed, otherwise this looks good to me.

[pauby]

Thanks @AdmiringWorm. I'll get that space removed (can't believe I didn't see it! 😄 ). I'll fixing up the other PR's too as they will likely have the same issue.

[AdmiringWorm]

@pauby I have fixed it up on the other PR's you made, I didn't notice the space until after I had merged those.

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[pauby]

Updated this PR with those changes.

@pauby I have fixed it up on the other PR's you made, I didn't notice the space until after I had merged those.

If it's not going to render properly in those other packages, do you want me to fix them?

[pauby]

@AdmiringWorm Going to put this into Draft just now as I may as well add this to it while I'm here.

[pauby]

@AdmiringWorm This is ready for review again.

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[AdmiringWorm]

LGTM

[AdmiringWorm]

@pauby your changes have been merged, thanks for your contribution 👍