On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:54, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > Hi *, > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:52:42AM +1000, Alex Fisher wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:49, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 08:43:26AM +1000, Alex Fisher wrote: > > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:20, Alex Thurgood wrote: > > > > > Le mardi 08 mars 2005 � 22:19 +0100, Christian Lohmaier a �crit : > > > > > > [...] > > > Although the GUIs don't have a switch to use nodeps, they will usually > > > ask something like "Dependencies for package not met. Continue anyway?" > > > > None that I've used so far do that. Kpackage and RPMDrake will simply say > > "The following packages cannot be installed..." (sometimes the message is > > "The following packages cannot be selected" which is even more annoying), > > and then when the OK button is clicked the program exits.... > > ? Well my version of rpmdrake could handle the dependencies properly. > Probably you did not have the needed packages in a location known to > rpmdrake? > > > > [...] > > > If you don't install your other software into custom locations, why > > > would you make an exception for OOo? > > > > Which is precisely what the current RPMs do... I have normally installed > > my programs into </usr/local/>, > > These are not binary packages, right?
Wrong. I rarely compile from source (the kernel is the primary exception). of all the software I have installed, only two have been compiled from source, and only four have been installed in /opt. *Everything* else has ended in either /usr/local or (in several instances, mainly anti-virus software) /usr/lib.... > > > but with the O.o packages (and the old install > > script did the same), everything gets put in </opt/>. so in fact OO.o is > > the exception, not the rule, > > It follows the recommendations of the FHS. If you want you can create a > symlink that points to /usr/local or use mound with the bind option. > > > and it would be nice to be able to place it into > > </usr/local>... But I can't from a GIU. > > Again: You cannot start the old setup from the GUI. You have to use the > commandline anyway (to specify the -net option) The old install-script > (which is a response-file installation) already accepted a custom > prefix. > > Whether you type in the desired patch in the promt or in some box of a > graphical setup doesn't really make a difference, does it? > > > > > > I'm sorry, but I disagree. Your anwser is like saying : here > > > > > hapless child, I gave you a cake with a cherry and cream on it in > > > > > Version 1.x.x, and now for Version 2, which I've trumpeted as a > > > > > super-duper improved cherry cake, there isn't going to be any cream > > > > > or even any cherry.. Which cake would I rather have ? > > > > > > > > > > > > - how can I choose which filters to install when I use the > > > > > > > RPMs ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Simply don't install/install the xsltfilters package. > > > > > > > > And what if one needs only *one* of those filters? > > > > > > You are constructing weired scenarios. > > > > No, not weird at all. It is one which *may* arise (see below).... > > No. You say: "We need the graphical setup for the "helpless child"" and > then you argument with something only an advanced user will do. :) wrong again. Even when I was just starting to find my way around Windows 3.1, I preferred to use a Custom setup. And at that point, I had had a computer for about 3 months. At that time, I *was* the archetypal "helpless child". > > > > Why would you only install one > > > single filter? > > > > I might only have a Palm, so I only need the Palm filters. In the Windows > > installer, that is not a problem, as I have the chance to select only > > that filter. > > > > > How many users do you know who did not install filters? (I'd love to > > > hear the reasons for not installing the filters as well) > > > > Disk space, not needing the filters, only ever going to use it for text > > documents... > > Disk space.. You install 200+ MB and don't have 2MB left for the > filters? Quite possible. It has happened to me, and not so long ago either....... > > > There are quite a few. With the old installer, I rarely > > installed any extra filters, since I have no need of them. *If* I did > > find a need, then it was a simple matter or running the install script, > > selecting "Repair" and installing the missing components.... > > It was selecting "modify", not "repair"... > With the rpms there is not much of a difference. You don't have to run > the setup but simply install the filter-rpm. > > > > > this answer is not good, > > > > since the method requires an "all or nothing" approach. > > > > > > And be honest: How many (clueless) users will choose not to install the > > > filters? > > > > And how many of those will ever need or use them? > > That is not the point. IMHO the > > > > > > > > - where's the customized setup installation gone ? > > > > > > > > Still there in Windows, but not in Linux. The older tarball installer > > > > was superior in that respect. And the reason there is no longer any > > > > "Custom" option is plain... it is purely *because of* the RPM based > > > > packaging. > > > > > > > > Make RPM packages available by all means, but there needs to be a > > > > tarball (better yet, a self-extracting one) so that those who wish to > > > > may do a custom installation... [...] > > > > > > First define what you mean by custom installation. > > > > See the "Custom" option in the windows installer. > > These options don't make much sense. IIRC the custom setup once was > introduced because some IT-magazine wrote in a review "Does not even > offer a custom setup".. The options are just offered so that the user > thinks he has control over the setup (yeah, those windows users always > trying to "tune" their windows)... > > > > [...] > > > It will. If not it is a bug. But for OOo it doesn't matter. You can > > > choose whatever order you like. The dependencies are runtime > > > dependencies. There are no dependencies during installation. > > > > Strange... When I installed it (after having updated the urpmi sources), > > the packages were installed in a *very* specific order, and that order > > was nothing like I expected... > > So what? The order is irrelevant as long all necessary packages get > installed. It is up to rpm which package gets written onto the disk > first. > > RRM knows the difference between: "Package x needs to be installed > before package y can be installed" and "Package x needs to be installed > in order for package y to run properly" > > The latter is the case with the OOo packages. You can install the > packages in any order you like as long as you install the requirements > as well. > > (you can install openofficeorg-impress (with --nodeps so that rpm > doesn't complaint) and then the core packages and Impress will work or > you can install the core packages and then openofficeorg-impress and > Impress will work as well). > > > [...] > > The old style GUI had the advantage (for the end user) that they did not > > need to see the underlying packages. That is why I think the best would > > be to make the current RPM tarball a self-extractor, very much like Sun > > does with the JRE RPM installer (comes as a .bin executable, which ten > > unpacks the RPM and calls 'rpm -i'). A similar thing which extracts the > > OO.o RPMs, then calls a custom front-end to urpmi where the desired > > modules can be selected is (IMO) > > How should OOo know what frontend to call? Furthermore I don't like > wrapped RPMs. Usually these cannot be installed non-interactively. The JRE ones are quite non-interactive... run the downloaded script, the RPMs are unpacked and installed. The only "interaction" is to agree to the license.... > > > the ideal way to cater for all, incorporating the best aspects of both > > methods. It could probably be done with other package formats equally > > well too. > > I don't think so. Better have a document in the package explaining the > process instead of obscuring it. Good old installation instructions. > > Unpack the tarball and remove every rpm you don't want to install, then > become root using the "su" command and run "rpm -Uhv *.rpm" as root. Type > "exit" to become a regular user again. > > The following list will give you a description of the packages to ease > your selection. > > core packages: needed, non optional > > writer -> optional, but recommended - the word processor. Install if you > want to read write Text documents. > calc ... > > testtool -> optional, install this if you want to do automated testing of > OOo in order to assist in improving its quality, see > http://qa.openoffice.org for mor details... > pyuno -> optional, install this if you want to [...] > > You have to choose between one (or none) of the desktop-integration > packages. These will register the OOo mime-types and set-up entries in > the application-menu to launch OOo. Install the one that matches your > distribution. Not possible. Mandrake is not catered for, and neither the RH nor SuSE ones work. Gnome integration is useless, as Mandrake uses KDE by default. > > Something like this. > > > > Be fair when argumenting. All the major distribution will provide OOo > > > customized/adapted for that distribution. So most of the users will use > > > the OOo that came with their distribution. > > > The large number of clueless users you're talking about will not > > > install developer snapshots. They should not install the beta either. > > > And more important: They probably will not need nor want to do a > > > "custom install". What is needed is a more detailed description for the > > > packages like "Install this package if you want to do <this and that>" > > > to ease the identification of the packages. > > > > So you need a self-extractor like I described above.... > > No. They need some explanations. The self-extractor is only more helpful > becaue it shows descrtioptions of the components. Still the user has to > decide what he wants and what he doesn't want. (when running the custom > setup at all) > > > > And: The old installation required the use of a cli as well (or how did > > > you supply the "-net" switch?) > > > > I used the provided "install" script which would execute by simply > > clicking on it in Konqueror.... If I didn't want the "-net- switch, I > > simply clicked on the "setup" script. No need for the command line even > > there (which was very useful to know when I was giving instructions to a > > newbie). > > So. You did use the install script... But how did you customize the > installation in this case? -> you did not. > > -> This is what I mean with fair argumentation. Don't compare peas with > apples. > > ciao > Christian The real answer is that there is a need for *both* forms of installation, and always will be. We *need* RPM, DEB *and* tarball methods.... -- Alex Fisher Co-Lead, CD-ROM Project OpenOffice.org Marketing Community Contact Australia/New Zealand http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
