Hi *,
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:47:14PM +0200, Oliver Braun wrote:
>
> thanks for the feedback.
You're welcome :-)
> Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:55:32PM +0200, Oliver Braun wrote:
> >
> >>I am currently thinking about moving the desktop icons and the distro
> >>independent mime stuff into separate packages.
> >
> > What do you mean by distro-independent mime-stuff? If this is the
> > shared-mime-info stuff it is OK for me, but I for myself don't like the
> > idea to install legacy mime-info/*.keys & info with the freedesktop-menu
> > package. (The whole point of this package is to get rid of these)
>
> Yes, I am talking about shared-mime-info and the mailcap & mime.types
> modification postinstall part only. The legacy stuff should remain in
> the suse and redhat packages.
OK, so I have no objections against moving the mime-stuff this out into
a dedicated rpm.
> [...]
> So the desktop-icons package would install to /usr/share/icons and the
> suse-menus package would create corresponding symlinks in /opt/gnome and
> /opt/kde as necessary.
Great, so I have no objections moving the icons to a dedicated package.
Since these two packages will obsolete the freedesktop-rpm-package
(given that you include the call to update-desktop-database), feel free
to turn the freedesktop-package into the "base-menu"-package(s).
Whether you really create two seperate packages or one that contains
both the mime-stuff and the icons is more a question of taste (and I
leave this up to you/others to decide :-)
> > To sum-it up: I'm sceptical about this. If issue 46530 is not solvable
> > for OOo 2.0 I vote against it no matter what they contain since
> > identifying the relocatable/base packages will be impossible and thus
> > lead to unnecessary installation errors.
>
> Those new packages would always be installed.
The problem is that all packages are whithin one single directory,
the user is forced to do a preselection, no matter whether she wants the
full office installed since the menu-packages conflict with each other.
Another problem is that when the used decides to not install to the
default prefix, he has to do a further selection (move the menu-package
out of the way even when it is the right one for the distro) since the
menu-packages are not relocatable.
While the first one would not be that bad (one could advice the user to
"move every package you don't want to install out of the way"), the
second one is uglier ("move everything you don't want to install out of
the way - if you want to install to a different prefix, then install the
menu-package seperately")
> However I am not sure what
> happens if one tries to relocate unrelocatable packages.
If you try "--prefix /new/prefix" rpm will tell you that package xy is
not relocatable and won't install anything.
If you use --badreloc, then the package will be installed but
most-likely be non-functional.
> Of cause there is still the problem that only the redhat- or the suse-
> or the freedesktop-menus .... package can be installed.
That's only one aspect of the problem.
> > PS:
> > Is is really not possible to put the menu-packages into a subfolder of
> > the release-tarball?
> > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46530
>
> Hmm, need to take a closer look at it.
If this really is not possible, then please follow my request and close
it wontfix immediately. It doesn't make sense to have these kind of
things "on hold".
ciao
Christian
--
NP: Distant Winter - Five vs One
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
