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

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 

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

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 

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 

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

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


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

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,

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.