Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates

 On 05/10/10 07:36 PM, Paul A Norman wrote:
> What I have found is that under OOO I have always been left with
> install directories with Mbs of space used for previous installations,
> the uninstall or new install doesn't seem to have removed them.
>
> I have been thinking tha it would be neat to have as it were, one
> install of LiBO and have it "updated" in all the same directories all
> the time, even if it were a new version of LiBO that was being
> "installed - updated", unless the User specifically elected to have
> multiple installations of different versions, making the default that
> there is only ever one main copy that is updated all the time.
>
> Paul
>
> On 6 October 2010 13:35, Goran Rakic<grakic@devbase.net>  wrote:
> > У сре, 06. 10 2010. у 13:22 +1300, Paul A Norman
>   пише:
> > > Not sure where thinking is on this for LiBO at the moment, but is it
> > > concievable that updating even to each new version could, after a User
> > > response, be automatic and if elected by the User - replace the
> > > previous version automatically please?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > A first step would be to replicate the update notification feature
> > available in the OpenOffice.org. I guess only infrastructure is missing
> > for that one.
> >
> > I remember last year in Orvieto there were some talks about new
> > packaging for all platforms that would allow online installation
> > (allowing user to select, download and install any combination of
> > languages, cutting space requirements to do full install sets).
> >
> > I do not know what is the current status of this development and if it
> > would be easier to add autoupdate feature after that task is completed.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Goran Rakic
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
> > All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
> > List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
Paul,
I do agree with the principles of your suggestion. Certainly on Windows 
installs this is true as evidenced by the "Install Folder" left on the 
desktop. And leaving the install folders around, not cleaning up after 
the install, or an uninstall not removing everything that was installed 
seems rather unprofessional. So, yes, I concur. However, I believe that 
may be only for Windows...

*nix(Linux|Unix) installs can use a variety of install/package 
management programs (e.g. apt, yum, rpm, et al.) that resolve this 
issue. And these package management programs can also purge 
configuration files when removing a package. Package management also 
handle the kind of automatic update functionality you mention. But this 
is for *nix only...

Any installation method that is deployed, in my mind, must 'respect' the 
package management of the base operating system. I get rather annoyed 
with multiple types of update/install mechanisms (setup.py for certain 
python based apps for example) that seem to circumvent OS package 
management programs. But there is no 'one size fits all' solution. There 
are numerous install frameworks (e.g. NSIS - NullSoft Install Script[Win 
only], or IzPack[Java - used by scala]). Again, they seem to circumvent 
package management on *nix machines while catering to Windows based 
installs.

Problem is that Windows doesn't have a package management system. There 
is no one simple way to install, update or uninstall. Yes, there is 
msiexec, but that just provides a means to an end and doesn't handle 
update mechanisms nor framework/standardize installs. As for update 
mechanisms, we're left with 3rd party programs.

Other than making sure that LibO cleans up after itself, how much effort 
do we want to put into installers?

Regards,
Scott Furry
--
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/