Hi, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:34:38PM +0200, Matúš Kukan wrote: > Hi, > > Anyone knows what should be the result of processing scp2 files? > Few $(OUTDIR)/bin/*.ins files but I mean the solenv/bin/modules/ thing. > We could install (copy) files directly with gbuild, so what would be > missing after removing scp2 ?
My vision (for Linux) is that everything is in $(INSTDIR) and packaging is handled by native means: a spec file for rpm and a control file for deb. It would mean duplication in filelists, dependencies etc., but at least it would all be done at _one_ place (not two or more as today) and in formats that _someone_ understands. I suppose the MacOS X dmg could be produced in similar way--IIRC the only postprocessing done by the installer is signing of the product. Windows need a lot of postprocessing to create the msi, so a substatial subset of solenv/bin/modules/installer would still be needed for it, even if we create/use a new description format that is simpler than scp2. (Note that there is much more in scp2 for windows than for the other platforms: creation of shortcuts, registry items, and more. There is also the matter of translation of module descriptions.) > > Especially I don't understand the chaos in various modules (gid_Module_Foos) > - do we need them also for Windows? e.g. > scp2/source/activex/module_activex.scp Yes, we do. They are used to create the module tree in the installer, where you can choose which parts should be installed and which should not. D. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
