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

 On 09/10/10 10:48 PM, todd rme wrote:
There is another, somewhat independent issue that has occurred to me.
What about how the components are split up?  The issues are somewhat
different for windows and mac than they are for linux.

For windows and mac, if someone, for instance, only wants a database
program, should they have to download the entire program suite just to
install that one program?  There are a couple possible solutions to
this (in addition to the status quo).  One is that we supply the
current all-inclusive installer, as well as a separate installers for
the individual parts.

An alternative is that we provide an online installer, where you
download a small program, tell it what you want to install, and it
retrieves those bits and installs them.  This also has the advantage
that the actual download the user has to worry about deleting later is
very small, the rest of the downloads would be stored in a temporary
directory that would be automatically deleted later.

It occurred to me that this is, in essence, what the updater would do.
  So really you would only need one program, the updater, which would
also be able to handle the original installation.  You could just
download the updater and have it retrieve the latest versions of
whatever parts of the program you want from the servers.  This also
makes it easier for users who, say, install writer and find they like
it to easily install other components right from within the program.

For Linux, the issue is how the parts of the suite are divided up and
named.  Different distributions use lots of different ways to break up
the suite into individual packages and lots of different names for
those packages.  It is not possible to force distributions to use any
particular naming scheme, but I think that providing recommendations
and guidelines for how the packages should be divided up would be very
helpful.  Users would have a better idea what they need to install to
get the features they want, tech support will be easier because people
using different distributions can communicate more effectively about
what they have installed, and switching between different versions of
the software provided by different groups would be easier.  Of course
the content of these guidelines would require a lot of discussion with
distributions, but I would like to think distributions would be
willing to follow such guidelines if they are reasonable.


Nice thought.
As soon as I read your post I was smacking my forehead as this makes quite a bit of sense to me.

As I understand the current install from a strictly "Debian/Apt" perspective, what you describe exists in some form. LibO has a common or core package, individual packages for the different major LibO components and (I'm assuming here) the LibO Basis. If you have a look at Nicola's deb work ( ) you can get a better idea of how LibO's components are packaged for Debian/Ubuntu/Mint etc users.

The devs would have to comment further about technical feasibility, but from this user's point of view I like the idea.

Scott Furry

To unsubscribe, 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.