Hi Christian, I appreciate your kind help.
For some reason, I did not receive any mails from this list, but fortunately, I went to the OOo website and checked out the archives... Anyway, I tried to find the OOo autopackage file, but could not. I looked for "OOo-packaging" but could not find anything... is it a Project or something else? Would you be so helpful as to show me where I can download the OOo autopackage file? btw, I know that other formats are great, but I prefer the idea of an icon which I can click and install, just like we do in Windows XP, and having only one installer for all Linux distributions. I believe that there are many technical considerations, but I am only trying to find a common-sense way to install the latest version of OOo, my favourite suite. It was OpenOffice.org that led me to discover the beautiful world of open source, thus I am fond of it. Oh yeah, I CCed Mike Hearn from autopackage in case you have any packaging details to discuss with him. Thanks a lot, and I eagerly await your reply! Best Regards, Rykel Gizmo.Skype.eBay.MSN.Yahoo.Gmail : rykel98 ICQ : 22768140 Mobile : (65) 9277-6067 (Singapore) | 60-17-203-6202 (Malaysia) Using Firefox autopackage for LINUX! ______________________________________________________________ Response to: [installation-dev] OpenOffice.org Autopackage (Rykel) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:30 +0200 From: Christian Lohmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [installation-dev] OpenOffice.org Autopackage Hi *, On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 12:15:42AM +0800, Rykel wrote: > [...] > Anyway, I have a favour to ask of you. > > Is it OK for you to release OpenOffice.org for Linux in the > autopackage format instead of the usual RPMs or .bin/.run scripts? Sure this would be OK... > This way, I can install the latest version on any distribution, > without having to resort to alien or downloading 10 different RPMs and > DEBs for 10 different distros. You didn't have a look at OOo-packaging, did you? I personally don't like the way autopackage tries to solve "problems". > I am not technically savvy enough to create such an autopackage, and > would appreciate it very, very much if somebody is kind enough to help > me with it. It would so much easier to support autopackage if they would not have tried to reinvent the wheel. The few real deficiencies of rpms or debs could have been easily solved by a frontend to those packaging tools. A badly crafted autopackage ain't any better than a badly created rpm. Their arguments are mainly FUD. The only real advantage is the live-dependency checking. But this doesn't help at all when the package maintainer doesn't specify that dependency. And as I said: To add this feature to a package, it would not have been necessary to reinvent the wheel, a frontend that does these additional checks would have solved all the problems they list on their site. > Thanks in advance, and if you do need more info with autopackage, the > website is at http://www.autopackage.org. Since the OOo rpms are relocatable and doesn't really have dependancies it should be very easy to create a autopackage from the rpms. But for the reasons mentioned above, I don't really think that autopackage is any better. (only until badly crafted packages appear). IMHO it would have been way better to establish these features as a frontend/addon to the traditional packaging system. I'd just ask the autopackage-maintainers to just submit patches/scripts to create an autopackage to get a "flag bearer" for autopackage. (So I'm not against OOo autopackage, but I'll not support it personally) ciao Christian -- NP: Metallica - Hit The Lights --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
