Hi Eric,
eric.bachard wrote:
We need to define the exact way we provide an archive, and what this
archive does contain.
Sorry but what do you mean with 'archive'? Do you mean an installation
package for OOo2.0?
As reminder, please note I'm talking about these issues :
*TASKS* -> We have to choose what we exactly do for :
*42998* TASK P3 Powe ericb NEW Mac OS X
installer build of core application
*42999* TASK P3 Powe ericb NEW Localized
files for OOo2.0 MacOSX installer
(don't forget that localized strings are missing in #i42999#. Waiting,
en-US will be used as default)
Done : 43000 TASK P4 Powe ericb NEW Icons
for OOo2.0 Mac OSX installer
At this time, a directly buildable, complete and easy to install
solution (using portable files and a .dmg archive) already exists. But
we have a problem, because some objectives cannot be reached whith this
solution :
- language packs are forgotten (important issue);
- .ttf are omitted : Mac Users complain since ages about this problem,
because they cannot use the native fonts.
In order to come to a decision it would probably be usefull if we would
define some clear objectives and a target group for OOo2.0 Mac OS X
version. We would have a better background then to decide whats in-scope
and whats out-scope of the projetc. We cannot and should not address
every problem in this first shot.
In my opinion language packs are not so important in the first place. We
could also think about them after the OOo2.0 release.
Depending on the target group we are aiming at it could be (or not) an
option that people using tools like fondu manually in order to make the
Mac OS X fonts available in OOo. What end user group are we aiming at at
the moment (I mean with OOo2.0 Mac OS X version)?
So we actually are thinking to a new one :
- .pkg ( a metapackage in fact, with all .pkg in one) + a simple
launcher inside
- include a fondu mechanism inside, to automatically add .ttf fonts
while first install (silently)
Well I think OOo2.0 is not so far ahead anymore and I fear it might be
a little bit to late to start thinking again about new approaches at
least not for OOo2.0 or am I wrong?
I agree that in the long term an installer is perhaps the better
solution for such a complex application like OOo for the mentioned reasons.
What is expected here : your vote for one or the other solution, with
(or without) just some essentials arguments
So I vote for the drag&drop solution for OOo2.0 which is already
available (with some minor quirks to solve maybe).
Just my two cents,
Tino
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
