Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

 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 :
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.

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.

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

Scott Furry
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
List archives are available at


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.