Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates

On 2010-10-07 7:49 PM, Scott Furry wrote:
>  On 07/10/10 05:00 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 2010-10-07 6:05 PM, Scott Furry wrote:
> > > On 07/10/10 03:04 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:

> I have seen an ActiveX plugin installed in Firefox (which I promptly 
> removed).

There was only one *3rd party* effort that I recall from a long long
time ago that made any real progress, but it didn't work for anything
that I ever tried and it was buggy as hell, then development died while
Firefox was at version 1.5...

But I guarantee you that you never, ever saw an ActiveX Firefox plugin
installed via Windows/Microsoft Update, as you said you did.

> Your previous text led me to believe you were suggesting that the
> person doing the packaging was to edit the source code. This person
> doesn't have a need to open up and/or change source code.

Sometimes, yes, they absolutely do, for lots of reasons... what if
upstream makes a bad decision (like when Oracle decided to remove the
colored icons from OOo in version 3.2.1)? What if there's a patch
available that alters the app in a favorable way (in the package
maintainers opinion)? What if an easily fixable bug or security hole is
slow to be fixed by upstream? The package maintainer can take care of it.

> > I was speaking to an updater for Windows... there never has been
> > one.

> What about Windows Update?

?! Are you being intentionally obtuse? Obviously I meant an incremental
updater for the Windows version of OOo.

> From a non-os software side, I do recall seeing a update/notify
> program. Can't remember the name and I no longer can find the link.

A notifier is not an incremental updater. There are lots of notifiers.

> > I do not think that LibO should be in the business of providing 
> > individual distro packages - let the distro package managers do
> > that. It will free up lots of developer resources to focus on
> > programming, not building/providing packages.

> The Debian distribution has over 25,000 different packages in their 
> repository.

According to what I have read, while some debian evangelists like to
throw that number around, because of the way debian often breaks a
single application up into multiple packages, the total number of
*applications* is actually considerably less than that.

> You think Debian has the time to look after this stuff?

Yep, they do it all the time, as do every other package maintainer for
every other distro out there. That's precisely what being a package
maintainer is all about.

> If somebody from the organization and/or community does not do the 
> work (or DF pays someone to do it) LibO will either *never make into 
> the repositories* -or- *become an extremely low priority* for 
> distribution.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence (ie, you're wrong).

> This is why I suggestion packaging specialists. See my comments
> about Debian above.

<snip>

> DF already provides access to the source, as well as instructions on
> how to build the source, both available from the DF home page.

<sigh> I know this Scott - but again you are missing the point.
Historically, building OOo has always been very problematic for many
reasons, which I guess is why they got into the habit of providing the
actual packages (rpms/debs) themselves.

That said, I can see the argument for providing spec files (rpm and/or
deb), and absolutely Windows needs installers (dunno enough about the
Mac packaging system/process to comment on it)...

And just to be clear... I'm not saying it is a bad thing or wrong to
provide these packages - a lot of projects do it. What I'm saying is
that with a project of this size and complexity, the more the devs can
offload onto others (like building packages), the more resources are
available to develop the application.

But as always - I may be totally off-base about this, so this will be my
last comment about it. If the LibO devs say this isn't a big deal and
providing these packages is not consuming a lot of their resources, then
discussing it is just a lot of noise about nothing... :)

> I suspect that my strict-*nix focus and trying to communicate 
> non-windows may also be an issue.

And I admit my coming from a windows background (I do manage a few
gentoo servers, but am definitely *not* what I would call 'fluent' in
the *nix's) does cause me to make bad assumptions about things *nix at
times...

> Its not about historical (at least I don't think it is) perspective.
> IMHO, its about how the *nix community at large functions, which can
> cause someone not versed in it to become exasperated.

Interesting comment, seeing as you seem to be unaware of the fact that
most *nix distros have their own package maintainers that don't rely on
packages being provided to them by upstream, instead building them from
scratch from the upstream source repository. ;)

> Somewhere in my bookmarks is a link to "the cathedral and the
> bazaar", a book that discusses differences between commercial and
> open-source development. Would that be of interest to you?

Thanks, but it's already on my reading list - which is already large
enough to keep me busy until at least star-date 4392.7... :)

-- 

Best regards,

Charles
-- 
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/