Re: LibO Install/Update ( was [tdf-discuss] Automatic Updates)

 IMO, the discussion on packaging seems strange considering that quite 
a few open source sites I visited in the last couple of days most have 
some form of downloads available for the different distribution: 
PostgreSQL and Go-OO being just a couple of examples.

And as suggested by the Go-OO site, the rationale for distribution was 
to avoid some of the politics and interpretations of open source that 
can occur. Packaging to me just makes sense.

If other distributions want to repack, fine - that's their prerogative. 
To me it isn't a waste of resources. They just want certain changes that 
LibO doesn't have (and why they didn't push those changes back to us to 
incorporate is an entirely different discussion).

Moving on from the discussions dwelling on specific topics of Unix/Linux 
distributions...

From what I have seen on this topic so far:
- Mac users (three? ) have commented that they do not have an issue with 
the current installer.
- In the initial thread, many Windows Users indicated that an update 
mechanism would be great.
- Some commented the current Windows installer leaves artifacts behind
- Windows Installer does not detect/remove previous installations
- Lots (vast) amounts of discussion on packaging in Linux
- some have question if distributing packages is a good thing

What would be nice to see discussion on from the *community*:
- How do you expect LibO to be updated?
- What are your use cases of Install/Update
- Other programs have separate updating programs (iTunes being an 
example), if it was technically feasible, would having this feature be 
useful to you?
- Would having a download site/accessible package repository be of value 
to you?

Regards,
Scott Furry


--
To unsubscribe, 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/