On 2012-03-05 1:52 PM Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM, 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
Yes. But note that this will also be true if we installed AOO into a
different directory. They would need to reinstall all the extensions
again also.
That is pretty obvious. What is your point?
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.
That won't help in this case. Regardless of where the profile is
stored, we're unable to read the local DB that stored information
about what extensions were installed. So whether we use the same
profile or not, the user still must reinstall extensions if they want
them to work in AOO 3.4.
Yes it would. Importing the data that can be used in AOO 3.4 would leave the OOo user profile
intact. If the user then continues to use OOo their user profile would be intact. The user
would only have to install the extensions instead of redoing all user preferences,
dictionaries, templates, etc.
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?
If the user's goal is to continue running OOo 3.3.0, then what can we
say? Don't install AOO 3.4 or 4.0, or 5.0, etc. But if they do
want to run AOO 3.4 then they will need to reinstall the extensions.
I haven't heard anyone suggest an alternative approach to solving that
problem.
I have suggested an alternative that leaves the OOo profile intact.
Of course, "patches are welcome".
I am not a programmer. Such suggestions to users are insulting. Do you want our
feedback?
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." -
Edgard Varese
