Am Dienstag, 22. Mai 2012 um 04:31 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: > One more thing about the idea of installing at the m.n level instead of the m > level (i.e, m =3, n = 4), is that users can easily keep one or more versions > behind and mainly side-by-side. (I think there is some difficulty if they are > both running at once.) This has become routine for LibreOffice and it seems > to allow folks to try out new features without fearing regressions of work > that is important to them on the older release branch. > > I particularly like the fact that I can run multiple LibreOffice main > branches and Apache OpenOffice (only one though :( side-by-side. That is > great for QA, interoperability trouble-shooting, etc. Even with multiple > virtual machines, it is handy to have side-by-side installs, if not > executions, too. > > But that is a technical case for me. The more important feature is the > next-version branch install-ahead without burning any bridges. that is all nice and potentially useful but it requires also a lot of work that have to be done. The question is how many will use it? I think that most of our users don't want multiple installations in parallel. They want typically an easy installation with less input but good defaults. And they expect that .od* files are opened with the office automatically.
We can install the office in parallel and can tweak the user directory to have one for each installation. The archive builds for example do that already and they don't do a system integration. Good for QA and early testing of features. I think your installations and your personal requirements are very special and probably many of us do it special. The main question is what do our users want and expect by default? We can spent many time to implement a very fine grained 120% solution that addresses 0.2% of our users. For me personal the 99.8% are more interesting. But don't get me wrong if somebody wants to work on this area it's fine and some minor improvements are necessary anyway. Juergen > > - Dennis > > PS: I'm so taken by the idea of always installing side-by-side, that I have > some small projects where I will do that for every level of change. Even if > someone wants to (re-)build from source, there's ends up on the side too, if > they wish. I'm not sure I have it all figured out to be seamless yet. I must > get some experience with it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 18:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Windows Install Issues (was RE: Linux install issues) > > @Kay, > > Yes, that installation-guide page is very out of date. > > Did you ever look at this page: > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Win-en-x86-Setup>. > > I have additional clean screen shots, all using the released Apache > OpenOffice 3.4.0, and I need to update those images and the related remarks > where there is now a difference. They could be used for a how-to, as opposed > to the QA analysis, which I need to update with the new shots and any changed > observations. > > The only way to change the install location is by selecting Custom Install at > the appropriate point, and then looking at the dialog corner where the > install location can be changed. Unfortunately, I have learned not to trust > that option because there were so many releases (not OO.o) that failed > because the code had dependencies that were messed up. > > For Apache OpenOffice, this can change the directory in Program Files but I > don't think it will do much for application data in the User folder or the > Windows registry. So the User Profile, the extension cache and probably other > things will be interfered with if there is an older OpenOffice.org 3.x.x that > the user wants to keep running. (AOO 3.4 usurps the hidden Application > Data/OpenOffice/3/user/ ... subfolder.) > > I think I'll focus on the file-association problem right now, because it is > something that appears to be clear-cut and easy to remedy. > > - Dennis > > PS: I did reserve a MediaWiki HowTo page for Windows installation of the OO.o > 3.3.0 patch, but did not find time for the amount of work it takes to account > for the differences between Windows XP and Windows Vista/7/8. I suppose this > is a good place for details on Windows installation also. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 17:18 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > > @Kay, > > > > I believe the dialog is still there for optionally setting associations > > for .doc, .ppt, and .xls works. I should double-check that too. But there > > is definitely no detection that .odt, .ods, .odp, etc., are already > > assigned to an application other than OpenOffice.org, and no polite request > > or warning. > > > > > oh -- I see > > > > > > I need to do this on purpose under repeatable test conditions and capture > > details for a bug report. But I have seen it too often without warning of > > any kind during installs I was conducting for other purposes. > > > > - Dennis > > > > (It is too late to complain about the silent, automatic removal of earlier > > OO.o versions. It would have been good to follow the LibreOffice precedent > > of having OpenOffice3.4 start its own install directory, etc., just as the > > 3.x versions of LO do.) > > > > > Yeah-- I don't think that's happening for Linux. I included a "to do" on > this for Linux users on the revised Install Guide I put out today as it's > basically required to get things to work. > > I don't work on windows. Install instructions for Linux state where the > installation will go. Many Linux folks know how to control the actual > installation area if they want to. > > Dennis, it might be very helpful for you to make some changes to the > Windows install instructions in-- > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html > > to address some of your concerns. If you have them, I'm sure others do too. > You could add in there how to install to an alternate area, etc. > > I didn't spend any time at all looking at the Windows information, and > didn't receive feedback about a month ago when I first started working on > this. > Please fix as you see the need. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 15:43 > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as > > > owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that doesn't > > > matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of > > > > > > > supporting > > > them with the present arrangement. > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on > > > existing file associations too. > > > > > > > > > no advance warning? asking politely? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56 > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > > > > > Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: > > > > > > One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not use > > > the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., > > > > > > > any > > > longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too. > > > > > > > > > I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should > > > change any names. > > > We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can potentially > > > break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries etc. > > > > > > So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what > > > depends in this... > > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01 > > > To: ooo-dev > > > Subject: Linux install issues > > > > > > Hi all-- > > > > > > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems > > > with Linux > > > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, due > > > to the > > > way some vendors have installed LO. > > > > > > see: > > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide: > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html > > > > > > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say. > > > > > > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and > > > well, still > > > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old > > > OOo 3.3 is > > > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to > > > handle some > > > of the LO overlap? > > > > > > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go > > about > > > installing AOO 3.4 on linux? > > > > > > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the re-install > > > LO? > > > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then? > > > > > > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my > > distro. > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MzK > > > > > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > > > -- Mark Twain > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > MzK > > > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > > -- Mark Twain > > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > -- Mark Twain > >
