Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates

 On 06/10/10 05:00 PM, Jon Hamkins wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 11:39 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
> >    Le 2010-10-06 14:30, Steven Shelton a écrit :
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On 10/6/2010 2:21 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > > > Oh - and one thing that I'd really like to see is a simple 'incremental
> > > > updater' that just downloads a 'patch' file and patches itself, like
> > > > Firefox and Thunderbird and lots of other programs do now
> > I would vote for this too. It would be amazing if it were capable.
> This functionality is already available in package managers, if we just
> take care to use it.  yum, for example, supports delta RPMs.  The way
> this works is LibO would publish delta RPMs that contain all the
> differences from the previous release, and then the users yum package
> manager would download the delta RPM, build the full RPM from it, and
> install.  This approach has been in use for about a year and a half by
> fedora.  I'm not sure about apt-get systems -- they probably have
> something similar.  It really saves on bandwidth.
>
>       ----Jon
And I agree with Jon. +1
I've run into situations with OOo where installing/updating an extension 
becomes a mess.
End result is having to clean out configurations/cache and start from 
scratch. Not Fun :( Not Recommended :P

IIRC, apt-get uses a .diff file mechanism to apply patches.

What I would very much like to avoid is the situation of a repository 
full of 'abandonware'.
Having vast amounts of choice for extensions is wonderful for the 
community, so long as these extensions are being actively maintained. 
This I think is the problem faced by many community projects where users 
contribute the extension, based on some version of the main program. As 
the main program evolves, the extension suffers 'code rot' and joins a 
storage device full of unmaintained/abandoned extensions based on a 
particular version of the main program. (e.g. Apple - app store, Mozilla 
- add-on, Netbeans, etc.)

Package Management, through dependencies, would ensure that an 
unsuitable extension is not used or installed. The end user can rely on 
this system to help keep their install stable and secure. Just tweaking 
a file in a package (like being able to edit a Mozilla add-on 
install.rdf file to pass a basic revision check) can't be accomplished. 
The extension contributor needs to update the extension, or someone else 
can pickup maintaining the extension.

To me its a bit of waste where every large development entity has its 
own software repository based on their own update mechanisms. Someone 
else has figured out the hard parts, lets leverage their work rather 
than reinvent. Let's strive to let the users work on the operating 
system they've chosen and work in a way that is consistent with that OS.

@Roman
TY. Just trying to keep the conversation lively and informed. :D

Cheers,
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/