On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:09:39AM +0200, Éric Bischoff wrote: > Le Lundi 26 Juin 2006 21:33, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : > > ? The user doesn't have to bother. Either they use the packages provided > > by $distribution or they take the packages from vanilla OOo. > > > > And the packagers who are doing the packages for their distribution > > should know how to unpack something or how to compile from source. > > > > I absolutely do not get your point. > > My point is : why make it unnatural and complicated when you can do it in the > normal, regular way? The normal, regular way is to package software that > installs with "make install".
Because the structure of the OOo build-process is anything but regular, normal way? > Currently, if distributions want to do serious changes in OOo, they have to > learn the whole build mechanism, scp2 bits, etc, to finally build a package > that they will disassemble right away. Of course they can learn how to do > that, it's just unusual, since no other software than OOo goes that way. Yes. scp2 is special. But again: This has nothing to do about whether to do a make install or to not. > > You can use linkoo to create an installation out of your build-dir. > > I did not know that. So that would be equivalent to a "make install"? Where > is > that documented? There is some minimalistic info in the Hacking-guide in the wiki. > > > I install my distribution, and all software works smoothly together. > > > > That is as getting all your software from Microsoft, one single > > "Distributor". > > Okay, that piece of discussion is unrelated to main topic. It is even > completly off-topic ;-) but interesting, so let's continue with that. > Perharps in private if it bothers the others. > > Yes, you are right. That's like getting all your software from Microsoft. But > there are a few differences that make a lot of importance (caution, troll > included): > > 1) In fact, many companies _do_ get all their software from Microsoft, > putting > themselves in a state of strategic dependancy. I was not talking about companies, but end-users. And yes, if they get everything from microsoft, they're using a distribution and thus is a subset not related to the point. > 2) The software in your Linux distribution has not been written by the > distributor... Again this is not the point. A distributor's job is to ensure interoperability between the software packages it provides. In windows world the only thing that you can count to a similar framework may be the driver certification that almost no (low-end) vendor uses. But this is more hardware related stuff and thus unrelated again. > 3) You have the choice of your distributor. There's real concurrence. Again true, but totally missing the point. The point was: "Get binary from $vendor and run it without problems" is possible with windows, but not with linux. With linux you have: "Get the version built for Redhat if you're using RedHat", "get the version built for SuSE if you'Re using SuSE". "If you're using another distribution, then we can not guarantee that it will work - you can try one of the other distribution-packages or compile yourself. Good luck" > 4) A Linux distribution contains almost all the software you might need, it's > seldom needed to look outside of your distro. Again missing the point. I don't deny that. > 5) With Microsoft you cannot adapt the software to your needs. You have not > the source. Again true but missing the point. > > Now try to apply this to linux distributions. Get a package for SuSE and > > try to install that on Redhat. > > No one does that. Software is coherent within ONE distribution. Here you have the point (although you didn't realize that this was the point). > Listen, that's two different approaches. Why not just admit that it's > different philosophies, with both their advantages and drawbacks? I did not deny that, and the different philosophies don't matter at all. > And, returning to main topic, why try to import into Linux a packaging > philosophy that is adapted to Windows? Because unless most of the linux or the windows software, OOo is a cross-platform thing that existed for years. As with mozilla/firefox there are binary packages for the different operating systems/distros. OOo always worked like that. And why don't you want users to be able to install the vanilla version, but instead trying to "force" them use the version from their distribution? ciao Christian -- NP: Silverchair - Shade --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
