[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openoffice-discuss
Subject:    On the acceptance of an OO.o extension installer
From:       Marco Fioretti <mfioretti () mclink ! it>
Date:       2005-04-21 16:22:11
Message-ID: 1.3.200504211821.75390 () mclink ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Daniel Carrer wrote:
> 
> A lot of features can be implemented through extensions. If we 
> made it easier for people to submit and install extensions, we
> might get a good sub community there. It could take some pressure
> off from the core project.

and also:

> What are the chances of a near-future OOo version having an
> extension installer, like Thunderbird?

Before getting too excited about this, and starting it, please
consider also the impact on Gnu/Linux distributors. Some time
ago I announced here that Fedora developers where discussing
what and how include in their distro from OOextras, suggesting
that some OO.o guru should go there and contribute.

When reading about a template and extension installer, their
reaction was:

> Please don't...On a package-based system any stuff
> not installed via the native packaging system is a cause of much
> annoyance and grief...[better]fix something else in openoffice.org
> instead of inflicting yet another auto-downloader/installer on
> us.

The whole thread is here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-March/msg00559.html

and it also mentions the firefox installer as another PITA.

Me, I don't use so many OO.o macros to get real problems, but I
can confirm personally that Perl modules and their own separate
installation tools drive me mad every time I upgrade Linux: or, in
other words, that non native installers can indeed create more
problems than they solve.

I'm not saying "just don't do any installer", but please consider
seriously the arguments against them made by system integrators.

Ciao,
        Marco



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]