https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164043
--- Comment #12 from [email protected] --- As "V Stuart Foote" explained already, mixing two different installer-technologies is ... not the best ... idea :D So, in the long term, moving away from MAR to an MSP-based (MSI Patch) approach would be welcome. And Yes I know, that would make a lot of time invested into the MAR thing obsolete :( Of course you could also move away from MSI for Installation at all. But then Businesses will go nuts, because many rely on MSI-Packages for Application roll-out and -update. In the short term, I doubt that changing "DisplayName" and "DisplayVersion" in the registry by the MAR-Updater makes the situation worse in terms ob being able to uninstall/repair an LibO-MSI-Installation. As the field-names say, those are for Display :D BUT having the right version-information in those two fields, would make 3rd party Software-Update Tools that rely on the registry, like Kaspersky, uCheck, aso. to not give the users false positives. Currently those apps tell the user that LibreOffice needs to be updated, even though in reality it was already updated by MAR. So I think on the short term, making the Updater patching those two registry values would be a benefit. BTW: Is there a group-policy or another "comfortable" was to disable the MAR-Updater in Domain-Environments? So far, I have to patch XML-Files via scripts, which is not so "elegant" :D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
