Le Mardi 27 Juin 2006 14:14, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : > > 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.
OK. Minimalistic info in some hackers guide. On the other hand, "make install" is something well documented and well known. > > 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. That's historical reasons. > As with mozilla/firefox there are binary packages for the different > operating systems/distros. OOo always worked like that. These are indeed interesting to the end users, not to the developpers nor the packagers. > 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? I fully agree users should be able to choose. No one is forced to do anything. The only thing his, when they use the distribution version, they have more guarantee about coherence with other software, adequacy with the general philosophy of the distribution, conformance to the security policy, etc. That's why it makes usually a better choice for the John Doe user to choose the version packaged with his distribution. -- Si on ne peut pas toujours compter sur ses amis, on peut toujours compter son or. (Donjon de Naheulbeuk) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
