On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO >> 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x >> >> One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create >> a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and >> import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new >> profile. >> >>> 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. >> >> The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. >> How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before >> installing a new version? >> >>>> 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. >> Agree >> > > Rob, > > When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other > customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of > people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the > inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is > unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider > doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from > sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. >
I'm not aware of "other customizations" being overwritten in this case. Can you say more? -Rob > Jean
