It is one thing to encourage users to remove their older versions. It is another thing to automatically remove them and, along with that, features that they are relying upon.
I don't think the ability of OO.o to replace versions in the same line (i.e., 3.* -- and 3.* did not remove 2.* and 1.* as far as I know) is the proper precedent. I think how LibreOffice endeavored not to do that with their first and subsequent releases is the proper precedent. This is not about wearing the crown, it is about serving the user community. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator > releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend that AOO > 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent > side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do that > anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that > becomes imperative.) > In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install intructions how this can be overridden. > I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well. > It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to > provoke more of it. > If you are volunteering to re-write the extension manager client database support, please speak up and let us know your plan. > I also suspect that it is not a good idea to rebrand the Extensions and > Templates pages at SourceForge quite so strongly, since the only extensions > that are there now are for OO.o (and perhaps LibreOffice). > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 02:06 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test > > On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: >> On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote: >>> Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About >>> box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed >>> (e..g, "r1293550") then the install was a success. Please send a short >>> note to [email protected] telling us what platform and >>> scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to >>> LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have >>> already been attempted and which have not. >> >> Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8 >> >> Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg >> Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3 >> >> Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo >> and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy. >> Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed >> individual extensions later today. > > Hi Larry, > > unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB > which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple > solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes. > > Sorry > > Juergen > > >> >> All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in >> Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later. >> >
