Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Martin, On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 00:13 +0100, Martin Srebotnjak wrote: > If LO dmg will grow to 350Mb or 400Mb (with help in all languages) So - in fact, we can compress the per-language help content down to around 1.5Mb of real content (with some lifting); That would still mean another +80Mb or so to have every languages' help bundled which seems a bit too much. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
André Schnabel wrote: > allow people to do their own builds and distribute those via our > mirror network (or a parallel mirror network .. or their own network > or whatever :) ) > Hi Andre, well when using our current mirror network, we run into the mentioned speed, size & backup issues. The other suggestions: sure. Actually, that's what a few people already do, FWICT. :) Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Am 09.02.2011 11:55, schrieb Thorsten Behrens: This is much more than just hosting space (and I believe you mean 'mirror space' here), it's also backup space, time to produce builds, time to upload builds, time to distribute builds to mirrors - all of that increases by an order of magnitude with full lang builds. Plus, it's such a waste - 95% of the bits are the same. I don't currently see any way around the current approach, for official TDF releases, if we want to keep the current agility. Maybe strange idea and not thought to an end: allow people to do their own builds and distribute those via our mirror network (or a parallel mirror network .. or their own network or whatever :) ) This would be similar to mozilla's contrib builds. So - the TDF "core build team" takes care about the general builds (multilang + helppacks + langpacks in some cases). l10n teams (or teams porting to other platforms) take care about "what they want to have". With this the core team will not have to deal with the additional build and upload time, contributed builds can be de-coupled from regular builds (might be published some days later, announced locally only ...). regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi, 2011.02.09 17:43, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: As I understand it, the admin users would not be getting the password prompt if this option is set to Admin Authorization. Others would be getting it. IMO, that's a fair enough trade considering that the installer would only allow to choose the installation disk, and not directory (which means that /Applications/ in the main disk is the most likely location, and it would need authorization anyway). No, OOo/LO can be installed into any directory, there is no artificial limitation on where to put it. This is a huge benefit. I'm talking about installers produced by PackageMaker. The only "change location" possibility I found in an installer quickly produced for me by PackageMaker was a possibility to select from: 1) Installing the package to my user only (homedir?) 2) Installing it for all users (root folder, I guess ?) 3) Choosing a target disk (but not the directory!) And that's the biggest set of target options that I could get. I had to enable all of them separately in the PackageMaker. [...] So when you want to test yourself, create a non-administrator user first. Not necessary. The installer asked me for my password even though I am an admin. It also asked me to provide my password even when I chose to install the package into my home directory, how lame is that! What installer please? There is no package installer that would ask for a passworf for LO. (and never was). Opening the dmg-bundle and using drag'n'drop surely doesn't ask when using a target directory where you have regular write-access. Well, I made myself a dummy installer that "installed" a single document for me. :) Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Rimas, *, On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > 2011.02.09 00:44, Christian Lohmaier rašė: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: >>> 2011.02.08 22:32, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > > As I understand it, the admin users would not be getting the password prompt > if this option is set to Admin Authorization. Others would be getting it. > IMO, that's a fair enough trade considering that the installer would only > allow to choose the installation disk, and not directory (which means that > /Applications/ in the main disk is the most likely location, and it would > need authorization anyway). No, OOo/LO can be installed into any directory, there is no artificial limitation on where to put it. This is a huge benefit. > IMO, it's not such a big problem indeed. Well, I completely disagree, especially for testers it is very important to be able to install multiple versions side by side and in an easy way. And very often those have dedicated playground/testing accounts to not conflict with the rest of the system, and obviously those users don't have administrator privileges. So changing the installer type would be a pain in the a*. > [...] >> So when you want to test yourself, create a non-administrator user first. > > Not necessary. The installer asked me for my password even though I am an > admin. It also asked me to provide my password even when I chose to install > the package into my home directory, how lame is that! What installer please? There is no package installer that would ask for a passworf for LO. (and never was). Opening the dmg-bundle and using drag'n'drop surely doesn't ask when using a target directory where you have regular write-access. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
2011.02.09 01:13, Martin Srebotnjak rašė: Hello, just for the sake of this discussion, how big is the MSO installation for OS X? Maybe someone can check, I am not using it. If LO dmg will grow to 350Mb or 400Mb (with help in all languages) probably that is still not so bad compared to the full dmg of MSO. I understand not everyone has fast internet access and some people voice their concern about it but is there really a difference between 150Mb and 250Mb dmg? Do/can people in countries with very slow internet access really buy MacPros, MacBook Pros, iMacs etc.? I mean, probably even 150Mb is too much for those using very slow internet access, they would need an app in the range of 10-50Mb and not 200Mb. In that case LO should do something about the hard-copy distribution of LO - DVD's with LO should be available from local shops in those countries with lower-band internet, I guess. This project could lead the way: http://web.libreofficebox.org/ I just hope other languages don't get forgotten (as they got with the Portable LibreOffice which TDF members now claim TDF has nothing to do with it although it is hosting its files). LibreOfficeBox is similar, by the way – AFAIK, it's gonna be a German-only DVD mirrored worldwide... The reasoning is simple though – being a volunteered product, it features what its creators want it to, and since they all speak German, they chose to add a few other products to the DVD instead of other languages. Re hardcopy distribution: I think it could be even easier: a) we could contact local magazines about shipping LibO CD's/DVD's with a few of them b) we could take the Ubuntu approach and ship bigger amounts of those disks to local volunteers who could then give/mail them out locally. Re downloading big files: I suggested some time ago to implement the ability in the installer to fetch needed files from the Internet. However, nobody volunteered to invest their time into this (that includes myself), so we have what we have now. Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Christian, 2011.02.09 00:44, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: 2011.02.08 22:32, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Rimas Kudeliswrote: 2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: 2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as administrator) (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) [...] I did, believe me. What about the second drop-down here: http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ? Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while. There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary". The thing is – I don't see the other options in the drop-down. http://developer.apple.com/tools/installerpolicy.html Thanks. As I understand it, the admin users would not be getting the password prompt if this option is set to Admin Authorization. Others would be getting it. IMO, that's a fair enough trade considering that the installer would only allow to choose the installation disk, and not directory (which means that /Applications/ in the main disk is the most likely location, and it would need authorization anyway). IMO, it's not such a big problem indeed. But I remember reading yesterday (or maybe the day before it) that that checkbox is there to enable/disable the password prompt. Yes, but then you don't get any, even when it would require a password/administrator privileges, and then the installation will fail. Which is why Admin authorization is probably the best option. copying an app from dmg is completely different from the installer package we're discussing here. And yes, it *does* ask for administrator privileges, when a non-admin user tries to copy files into /Applications folder. If you only got one user account, you probably don't notice, since that user is administrator by default. Yep, that's obviously my case. :) The permissions /are/ necessary, but you don't have to deal with them when creating the bundle (the drag'n'drop "installer"), since it's regular copy operation and Mac OS X takes care of it and asks for privileges when necessary. Such a thing is not possible with the "package installer", there the one who builds the installer has to decide *beforehand* what privileges the installer will ask for. If you want the user to be able to install to /Applications, you have to require administrator privileges. But then a user who is not administrator, and doesn't have access to an administrator account to fulfill that requirement cannot install at all, even if the installer would offer a target-folder selection, since the user doesn't even get past the authorization. How often is that the case? So when you want to test yourself, create a non-administrator user first. Not necessary. The installer asked me for my password even though I am an admin. It also asked me to provide my password even when I chose to install the package into my home directory, how lame is that! Well, it seems like my expectations for it were a bit higher. Basically, it looks like an incomplete product. Perhaps we could write our own installer plugin which would check itself whether elevation is needed or not, and then expect those who install using commandline to just use sudo, but that's probably not really worth the trouble... Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Martin Srebotnjak wrote: > Even when it will work (hopefully in 3.3.2) > It should work even in 3.3.1 > So I would prefer it to be done the OOo way - full language builds (gui and > help), i.e. Spanish, Slovenian, English build etc. If LO has problems with > infrastructure, then different lang teams could maybe provide hosting space > for their language builds. > This is much more than just hosting space (and I believe you mean 'mirror space' here), it's also backup space, time to produce builds, time to upload builds, time to distribute builds to mirrors - all of that increases by an order of magnitude with full lang builds. Plus, it's such a waste - 95% of the bits are the same. I don't currently see any way around the current approach, for official TDF releases, if we want to keep the current agility. Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi, 2011/2/8 Michael Meeks > >So - thus far we have: > >Norbert, Thorsten and >Nguyen Vu Hung & Martin Srebotnjak > >pro this, and you against it. So - looking at your rational: > maybe I did not make myself clear. I do not like the current "help must be separate pack" concept at all. Especially since the online help does not work in different languages as it should on the launch of such a big change. Even when it will work (hopefully in 3.3.2), like Christian, I believe help is a constitutive part of an office suite, just like the printing and importing/exporting module etc. Noone thought of separating that (well, it does not take as much space on disk as help, I guess). So I would prefer it to be done the OOo way - full language builds (gui and help), i.e. Spanish, Slovenian, English build etc. If LO has problems with infrastructure, then different lang teams could maybe provide hosting space for their language builds. If that is not possible, my next vote goes for full-all-language-build (with all-language gui and help). Lp, m. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Christian, On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 16:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Michael Meeks > > wrote: > >>Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) > >> to > >> have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages, .. > No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer. So - thus far we have: Norbert, Thorsten and Nguyen Vu Hung & Martin Srebotnjak pro this, and you against it. So - looking at your rational: > The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you > be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to > only having to install one package?" So - I guess he would have said "yes", but he is perhaps an outlier; then again - why do you think it would be more than twice the current size ? [ clearly we would split the help packs as on windows ]. The Mac OSX no-lang installer is currently 180Mb The Windows all-lang installer is currently 215Mb That looks like 20% larger to me - for all languages; and given the existing 15Mb lang+help packs on Mac, the difference between distributing l10n+help together, and bundling all l10n, while splitting help (assuming most people don't download extra help-packs) is: 10% [ not a like for like comparison but not a huge growth ;-]. The good news is, that in 3.3.1 we will save another handful of megabytes from the multi-lang install set[1] - so it is sub 20%, and by 3.4 I hope to be very similar in size to the equivalent OO.o with no languages bundled. So - I agree; if it were double the size it would be bad :-) but are you completely opposed to a 20% growth, for much greater convenience for the common case ? > And to changing the installer type: No idea about that - it sounds bad from your description :-) > But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages, > for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on > other platforms... Heh - so; what I hear here is: "if you can fix the size, we should do it" is that fair ? if so, it sounds like an issue to fix in 3.4. ATB, Michael. [1] - unless that is consumed by new languages, lets see. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hello, just for the sake of this discussion, how big is the MSO installation for OS X? Maybe someone can check, I am not using it. If LO dmg will grow to 350Mb or 400Mb (with help in all languages) probably that is still not so bad compared to the full dmg of MSO. I understand not everyone has fast internet access and some people voice their concern about it but is there really a difference between 150Mb and 250Mb dmg? Do/can people in countries with very slow internet access really buy MacPros, MacBook Pros, iMacs etc.? I mean, probably even 150Mb is too much for those using very slow internet access, they would need an app in the range of 10-50Mb and not 200Mb. In that case LO should do something about the hard-copy distribution of LO - DVD's with LO should be available from local shops in those countries with lower-band internet, I guess. This project could lead the way: http://web.libreofficebox.org/ I just hope other languages don't get forgotten (as they got with the Portable LibreOffice which TDF members now claim TDF has nothing to do with it although it is hosting its files). Lp, m. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Michael, *, On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 16:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Michael Meeks >> > wrote: >[...] >> The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you >> be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to >> only having to install one package?" > > So - I guess he would have said "yes", but he is perhaps an outlier; > then again - why do you think it would be more than twice the current > size ? [ clearly we would split the help packs as on windows ]. Yes, split the help-pack and then again it is not one single installer anymore. I still regard help as a core component, and still dislike the rip-out of the help-packages from the languagepacks. So count at least 10MB of help for each language, and you cannot hold your 20% increase in size. > So - I agree; if it were double the size it would be bad :-) but are > you completely opposed to a 20% growth, for much greater convenience for > the common case ? Well, there it comes in conflict with the change of installer, I don't think a package installer is of greater convenience for the common user, and just installing all languages would increase the required disk-space quite a bit. So then it is not only about size of the installer, but also size on disk. >> And to changing the installer type: > > No idea about that - it sounds bad from your description :-) yes. I initially tried to use it for the languagepacks and got frustrated very quickly and resorted to the script that just extracts a tarball method instead. (even there with dirty tricks to bypass the artificial limitation of not allowing user-interaction when creating an applescript/osascript bundle, wrapping the same stuff in a shell-script that calls osascript on the very same applescript works just fine) >> But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages, >> for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on >> other platforms... > > Heh - so; what I hear here is: > > "if you can fix the size, we should do it" > > is that fair ? if so, it sounds like an issue to fix in 3.4. Well - if you can do it Having one big installer would be more favorable for BitTorrent, so from this POV I'm in favor of getting rid of the small languagepacks :-) (thankfully help is still included in the langaugepacks for mac) So I don't veto it, but the size has to go down. Splitting Mac in installer and seperate languagepack and seperate helppack would be much, much worse, so having a huge installer is the lesser of two evils... ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Rimas, *; On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > 2011.02.08 22:32, Christian Lohmaier rašė: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: >>> 2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > 2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: >> >> * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as >> administrator) >> (authentication is done before being able to select a >> target-directory) > > [...] I did, believe me. >>> >>> What about the second drop-down here: >>> http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ? >> >> Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while. >> There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary". > > The thing is – I don't see the other options in the drop-down. http://developer.apple.com/tools/installerpolicy.html > But I > remember reading yesterday (or maybe the day before it) that that checkbox > is there to enable/disable the password prompt. Yes, but then you don't get any, even when it would require a password/administrator privileges, and then the installation will fail. >> So when you want LO to be installable in /Applications, you need to >> chose admin authentification, but that means that the installer >> *always* asks for that, no matter when the user later chooses to >> install in his ~/Desktop in the later installer steps. > > I don't think copying an app from .dmg to /Applications asks for root > permissions, does it?. copying an app from dmg is completely different from the installer package we're discussing here. And yes, it *does* ask for administrator privileges, when a non-admin user tries to copy files into /Applications folder. If you only got one user account, you probably don't notice, since that user is administrator by default. >. If it does not, then permissions shouldn't be > necessary to install there too. The permissions /are/ necessary, but you don't have to deal with them when creating the bundle (the drag'n'drop "installer"), since it's regular copy operation and Mac OS X takes care of it and asks for privileges when necessary. Such a thing is not possible with the "package installer", there the one who builds the installer has to decide *beforehand* what privileges the installer will ask for. If you want the user to be able to install to /Applications, you have to require administrator privileges. But then a user who is not administrator, and doesn't have access to an administrator account to fulfill that requirement cannot install at all, even if the installer would offer a target-folder selection, since the user doesn't even get past the authorization. So when you want to test yourself, create a non-administrator user first. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
2011.02.08 22:32, Christian Lohmaier rašė: Hi Rimas, *, On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: 2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rimas Kudeliswrote: 2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as administrator) (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) [...] I did, believe me. What about the second drop-down here: http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ? Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while. There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary". The thing is – I don't see the other options in the drop-down. But I remember reading yesterday (or maybe the day before it) that that checkbox is there to enable/disable the password prompt. So when you want LO to be installable in /Applications, you need to chose admin authentification, but that means that the installer *always* asks for that, no matter when the user later chooses to install in his ~/Desktop in the later installer steps. I don't think copying an app from .dmg to /Applications asks for root permissions, does it?.. If it does not, then permissions shouldn't be necessary to install there too. I can probably check it tomorrow though if my Mac at work has the packager app. Rimas P.S. I'm still waiting for you to read my few days old message on the other thread or to come to IRC so I can bug you about it... :) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Rimas, *, On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > 2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: >>> 2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as administrator) (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) >>> [...] >> I did, believe me. > > What about the second drop-down here: > http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ? Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while. There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary". So when you want LO to be installable in /Applications, you need to chose admin authentification, but that means that the installer *always* asks for that, no matter when the user later chooses to install in his ~/Desktop in the later installer steps. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Christian, (I cut out the part which I'm not planning to check out myself. Let's say I'll trust your word on it. :)) 2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: 2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as administrator) (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) At least the latter is not true at all, or, as you prefer to say, bullshit. You should check your facts before posting. :P I did, believe me. What about the second drop-down here: http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ? Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi Rimas, On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > 2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Michael Meeks >>> wrote: >> [...] >> And to changing the installer type: >> This would have major drawbacks as well. >> >> * You have to build the installer as root/admin user > > Where did you get that from? I haven't tried to build a mac package, but I > see no reason why doing that would require root rights. Well, you might see no reason, but I did try, thus I know from own experience. The same stupid restriction that you cannot run osacompile without either being logged in graphically or being root. Yes, you don't see a reason why it would require that, but it is like it is. >> * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as >> administrator) >> (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) > > At least the latter is not true at all, or, as you prefer to say, bullshit. > You should check your facts before posting. :P I did, believe me. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė: Hi *, On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages, +1 It is fine, OOo did it that way. No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer. The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to only having to install one package?" And to changing the installer type: This would have major drawbacks as well. * You have to build the installer as root/admin user Where did you get that from? I haven't tried to build a mac package, but I see no reason why doing that would require root rights. * Installing multiple versions is more difficult, as is choosing a destination for the installation Well, you can at least choose the disk partition... I agree that it's not really flexible though. * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as administrator) (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) At least the latter is not true at all, or, as you prefer to say, bullshit. You should check your facts before posting. :P Drag-and-Drop installers are the preferred installation method. Correct. But it's not the only available method. But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages, for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on other platforms... Well, it's size vs. convenience. We have to balance somehow. Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi *, On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Michael Meeks > wrote: >> >> Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to >> have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages, > +1 > It is fine, OOo did it that way. No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer. The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to only having to install one package?" And to changing the installer type: This would have major drawbacks as well. * You have to build the installer as root/admin user * Installing multiple versions is more difficult, as is choosing a destination for the installation * You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as administrator) (authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory) Drag-and-Drop installers are the preferred installation method. But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages, for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on other platforms... ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
2011.02.07 13:17, Thorsten Behrens rašė: Michael Meeks wrote: Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages, and have an optional help-pack ? Yep - though I don't really like the installer concept on mac, I guess I'd then prefer to install all those langs unconditionally. If that turns out to cause issues, we can discuss other options. Well, all languages together (incl. help packs) would certainly take up a considerable amount of space. BTW, Mac OS X has a built-in package installer, which, while doesn't support uninstallation, seems to do everything else that we may need. Here's a HOWTO about it: http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PackageMaker_Howto.html In the second half of this document, there's information about making a metapackage, which is basically what we would need to make installing languages optional. With screenshots! ;) Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
2011.02.06 19:35, Martin Srebotnjak rašė: Hi, 2011/2/6 Nguyen Vu Hung Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack. Most hassle-free (and Mac-like) would really be to have a single full-lang pack with all gui and help languages. The install process would offer possibility of languages to be installed and of online help. FYI, we don't use an installer on Mac at the moment*. The whole installation process is drag-n-drop, just like that of most other applications. However, some applications DO use install wizards on a Mac, so we probably wouldn't stand out too much if we used one too. * To be fair, I haven't yet tried LibO on a Mac, so my statement is based on OOo 3.3. ;) Rimas -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
On 06/02/11 18:35, Martin Srebotnjak wrote: > Hi, > > 2011/2/6 Nguyen Vu Hung > >> Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack. > > > Most hassle-free (and Mac-like) would really be to have a single full-lang > pack with all gui and help languages. The install process would offer > possibility of languages to be installed and of online help. > > But that would look nice on Windows as well (langpacks could also be > downloaded during the install, as is the case with the AbiWord setup). > > Lp, m. > Hmm, well, it's a massive download and not everyone have the benefit of high speed connections, so making it smaller would be most beneficial. Also the fact that we can have online help makes things lighter. However, it also poses a problem for certain people. Olav -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ...
Hi, 2011/2/6 Nguyen Vu Hung > Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack. Most hassle-free (and Mac-like) would really be to have a single full-lang pack with all gui and help languages. The install process would offer possibility of languages to be installed and of online help. But that would look nice on Windows as well (langpacks could also be downloaded during the install, as is the case with the AbiWord setup). Lp, m. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
