On 2010-10-06 1:04 AM, Scott Furry wrote: > Any installation method that is deployed, in my mind, must 'respect' > the package management of the base operating system.
+1 - So, for most *nix's, this would mean that the built-in LibO updater should be disabled, and let the systems package manager take care of it. > Problem is that Windows doesn't have a package management system. > There is no one simple way to install, update or uninstall. Yes there is... use the MSI system, which will take care of things like unpacking to the environments /tmp directory, launching the installer after unpacking (like it does now), then - and here is the trickey part I guess - detect a current installation, and offer to upgrade it, or to install a parallel version. I am not a programmer, but I know enough about it to know that this wouldn't be all that difficult to do for a good programmer who has experience writing installer scripts for the windows platform. > Yes, there is msiexec, but that just provides a means to an end and > doesn't handle update mechanisms nor framework/standardize installs. > As for update mechanisms, we're left with 3rd party programs. The current OOo auto-update detector would be fine if the update process itself worked as I described above. > Other than making sure that LibO cleans up after itself, how much > effort do we want to put into installers? Since updates is one of the things that seems to confuse a lot of people, I think it would be a good thing if this could be fixed... Oh - and while we're on the subject, please, bring back the ability to choose how File Associations are configured in the GUI installer - but with the addition of the new XML versions too (so, there would be 6 checkbox/choices instead of just 3. -- Best regards, Charles -- To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to [email protected] All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
