On 1/13/13 8:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 10/01/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: >>> >>> Le 10/01/2013 13:57, Rob Weir a écrit : >>>> >>>> If we have not figured out exactly what causes the current OOo 3.3.0 >>>> -> AOO 3.4.x profile migration problems, how are we certain that these >>>> problems will not come back when we migrate AOO 4.0 to AOO 4.1 ??? >> >> >> Between 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 we changed (twice) the way the profile is stored, >> first removing a dependency on BerkeleyDB and then reducing the profile size >> by not putting a copy of shared extensions there. If we don't do >> incompatible changes again, we remove this type of risks. >> > > Is it technically possible to move to a text-based profile, maybe > something in XML format? Or must it be binary? If we could use a > text-based profile then it would be easier to support users. If > something goes wrong it would be easier to debug, and easier to fix. > It would also be good for admins, since they could then push out > profile changes to their users.
the configuration files are xml, the extensions were managed for whatever reason with berkeley db but it is changed now as well. Juergen > > -Rob > >> >>> Even a brand new install leads to profile corruption rather quickly >>> (especially under XP). >> >> >> I've seen it happen when one tries to keep both 3.3 and 3.4 installed, with >> a "setup /a" for example. The two, unless he takes care of customizing it in >> the INI files, will try to use the same profile folder. The first run of 3.4 >> will convert it to the 3.4 format, then if you run 3.3 again you will break >> it. This is of course an unsupported configuration, but it might explain why >> people who see 3.4.1 working smoothly suddenly find it broken. I'm not >> implying that this covers all the cases you report, but it could be >> responsible for a part of them. >> >> Regards, >> Andrea.
