Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates

 And I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that M$ missed the boat here.
Also, some kind of 'package management' feature would be nice.
Note that Windows is only one OS (albeit with a rather large user base) 
out of many that can run LibO.

The garbage that gets left behind after typical application 
install/uninstall on Windows both in the registry or dll files is in my 
mind a security flaw in its own right. There is a little known tool from 
M$ Download Centre called Windows Installer Cleanup that does some 
searching for registry and file/folder remnants.

However, as for LibO, I concur that we should lead by example. For 
example, Debian publishes deb package guidelines and we should encourage 
devs to follow these guidelines as best as possible (and we probably do 
already, but state it anyway). And in some cases, these 'guidelines' can 
sometimes be more like hard&fast rules to live by.

Conversely, there are 'guidelines'/'best practices' for Windows that 
leave one the impression that "they're not rules. They're more like 
guidelines." (POTC-TBP). In the end, the devs (guided by the community) 
have to define those 'best practices'. And cleaning up after an install 
is a good place to start. After that? That depends on feedback.

Again, we're left with a plethora of 3rd party tools to choose from (if 
this choice isn't set in stone already) to handle 
install/update/uninstall functions. If there is an update functionality 
available (and AFAIK there is - tiger something springs to mind), let's 
use that rather than expecting devs to delve into MS OS 
fundamentals/package system. I don't think WE(community inclusive 
variety of the word) have the kind of bandwidth to develop a one-off 
windows based package system. That subject alone would probably open up 
barrels (to heck with cans) of worms.

Food for thought.
Regards,
Scott Furry

On 06/10/10 12:11 AM, Paul A Norman wrote:
> Nice clear thinking thanks Scott.
>
> I have heard from people that they don't like these artifacts of
> install, and also they often don't realise that they need to uninstall
> a previous version of OOO - and you can use quite a bit of disk space
> up, you end up with an install set and and install for each version of
> OOO at present afaik.
>
> The non-real package manager situation on Windows was I believe a
> business decission of M$ early in the piece focussed around commercial
> matters and policy ratrher than the User experience and good OS
> management.  The Control Panel Add/Remove feature to my knowledge
> presents little or no behind the scenes core management tools for
> developers in the light of what you are talking about.
>
> Maybe an auto detect determined - LiBO package management routine for
> M$ systems, auto-detect  as OOO presrntly does for other OS specific
> needs/features?
>
> I reckon that LiBO could give a really good lead in this - M$ also
> often leaves messes behind including large un-needed install and
> update files under WIndows DIR TREE - maybe this could be  a point of
> differecne for LiBo amongst  Office Products on M$ at least?
>
> Better management of these files could be a real draw card for people
> on M$, and there are still an awful lot of those M$ OS potential LiBO
> people!
>
> Paul
>
> On 6 October 2010 18:04, Scott Furry<scott.wl.furry@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >   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 Norm
> an
> > >   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 th
> e
> > 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 remov
> ing
> > 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 wit
> h
> > 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 numerou
> s
> > 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 i
> s
> > 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 b
> e
> > deleted.
> > List archives are available at
> > http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
--
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/