https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76227
Michael Meeks <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG --- Comment #12 from Michael Meeks <[email protected]> --- Hi Michael, (nice name incidentally) :-) > If it is a design issue, then it is not consistent, since the Windows > version installs the new version with no problem when an old help file > is installed ? Consistency with windows - which has no even half-way decent package management or dependency setup at all is not really a goal. As & when Windows has a sane package management system it's an option of course. > So, why does the linux version not work. Au contraire - it does work =) Then again - if -you- want to help patch this issue things change: people with real, tested code changes can make a difference. I have some sympathy with the idea that the help doesn't really change that significantly across minor versions; so potentially loosening the requirement there might be helpful. But code first; not bug status wars - which just irritate people. > The help back is only 6M, so either including it in the original package, > or making it not required like windows ? Ethnocentricty is not a crime; but why would your language (of 100+) be privileged to be bundled in the original package - if you multiply the 'only 6Mb' by >100 languages, you have over half a Gb. That is not attractive to tack onto the existing ~200Mb package. Of course, we could up-load 100's of Gb by having separate packages for each language - but this is a scalability, up-load efficiency, and then server/mirror utilization disaster area. That's why we don't do it ;-) > I generally, always install it on both, but windows doesn't require it? There should be no need to install the help; you can use on-line wiki-help in either case. > At the moment, one has to download both program and help file, and copy > the help file rpm file into the program RPMS directory, and then do > rpm -Uvh *.rpm, or perhaps uninstall the program and help files, and > then reinstall them separately. Sure - so manual package management on Linux sucks to the point that only some tiny fraction of our users bother to not use their distro packaging, some even smaller set bother to install the on-line help - this is a corner-case. > Think may users would try to install, and when they get the dependency > error just give up. Again - I think its unlikely; but I'm glad you're concerned about this use-case. I imagine fixing it is a matter of reading up on the public EPM docs, and then wrestling with the EPM packaging code and-or solenv/bin/make_installer.pl and it's spawn. I'd love to see a patch to slightly relax the dependency (it will still affect people updating through x.y versions though) - but lets leave this bug closed until then. Thanks for your feedback. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
