Hi *, On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:07:28AM +0200, Art - Arthit Suriyawongkul wrote: > (filed in Issue Tracker as issue #46333) > > "Native Linux install package using autopackage" > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46333 > ---- > [...] > This issue proposes OOo to have a Linux install package which using an > Autopackage framework.
The easiest/fastet method to get a package in this format is to provide patches that add support for this. > Major Linux applications that now successfully use Autopackage are > including Gaim, Inkscape and AbiWord (experimental). These are basically the only ones...(besides FireFox) that are worth mentioning... Autopackage unfortunately reinvented the wheel instead of reusing existing stuff. It would have been easy to repackage an rpm (or deb) into an autopackage... RPMs and Debs are as good for non-core package as an autopackage. None of the reasons are real reasons. Mainly FUD-style arguments. Dependency-meatadata: autopackage has the same problem. RPMs can depend on abstract packages like "MTA" (mail transfer agent) or "editor",... Macros: these are expanded when building, so the end-user doesn't need to have them. Only the package-builder uses those. The only valid point is that rpm only checks a database, not what actually is installed. But a GUI/frontend could easily have filled this gap (and can solve *any* of the mentioned issues with rpm/deb). The /real/ point is the educational part: There are many broken rpm packages around and having a new package-systems will probably sort these out. But wait until autopackage has established, then the bad autopackage-installations with wrong dependency-information and with broken prep-scripts will show up. My 0,02 â ciao Christian -- NP: Metallica - Bad Seed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
