[installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Oliver Braun
Hi *,

with the move to the new numbering schema also the default installation
directory changes from "OpenOffice.org 2.0" to "OpenOffice.org 2.1"
resp. from "openoffice.org2.0" to "openoffice.org2.1".

Assuming that users might have language packs installed in their OOs
2.0.x, the result when updating will be platform dependant:

* on Windows, the installer will detect the existing 2.0.4 and propose
"OpenOffice.org 2.0" as destination directory instead => language packs
still there, but potentially incompatible (might even lead to crashes).

* on Unix, the default directory "openoffice.org2.1" will be used,
resulting in a naked OOo 2.1 with the language packs still present in
"openoffice.org2.0".


Shouldn't we issue a warning on Windows and install to "OpenOffice.org
2.1" by default as on Unix ? Users willing to take the risk might still
choose the "OpenOffice.org 2.0" manually.

- Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg
Hi Ollie,

Oliver Braun wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> with the move to the new numbering schema also the default installation
> directory changes from "OpenOffice.org 2.0" to "OpenOffice.org 2.1"
> resp. from "openoffice.org2.0" to "openoffice.org2.1".
OK
>
> Assuming that users might have language packs installed in their OOs
> 2.0.x, the result when updating will be platform dependant:
>
> * on Windows, the installer will detect the existing 2.0.4 and propose
> "OpenOffice.org 2.0" as destination directory instead => language packs
> still there, but potentially incompatible (might even lead to crashes).
What does "potentially" mean? Does it vary with the language, or do we
just don't know?
>
> * on Unix, the default directory "openoffice.org2.1" will be used,
> resulting in a naked OOo 2.1 with the language packs still present in
> "openoffice.org2.0".
As one might expect OOo2.1 to be compatible with OOo2.0, the right
choice might have been simply OOo2. So, what about future 2.x releases,
do we already have an understanding what the behavior regarding language
packs is going to be?
>
>
> Shouldn't we issue a warning on Windows and install to "OpenOffice.org
> 2.1" by default as on Unix ? Users willing to take the risk might still
> choose the "OpenOffice.org 2.0" manually.
How big is the risk, actually?
>
> - Oliver
Kay

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Oliver Braun
Hi Kay,

Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:

> Oliver Braun wrote:
>> Assuming that users might have language packs installed in their OOs
>> 2.0.x, the result when updating will be platform dependant:
>>
>> * on Windows, the installer will detect the existing 2.0.4 and
>> propose "OpenOffice.org 2.0" as destination directory instead =>
>> language packs still there, but potentially incompatible (might even
>> lead to crashes).
> What does "potentially" mean? Does it vary with the language, or do we
> just don't know?
It should not vary with the language, but with the amount of changes
made. A good candidate for crashes or unexpected behavior would be to
remove a tab page in Tools - Options: since the tree view to the left is
loaded from the old language pack resource, but the code for the
corresponding page is no longer there, any attempt to create this page
will lead to a crash (or bring up another page if the id had been re-used).

>>
>> * on Unix, the default directory "openoffice.org2.1" will be used,
>> resulting in a naked OOo 2.1 with the language packs still present in
>> "openoffice.org2.0".
> As one might expect OOo2.1 to be compatible with OOo2.0, the right
> choice might have been simply OOo2.
I agree, but this was not clear when 2.0 was released.
> So, what about future 2.x releases, do we already have an
> understanding what the behavior regarding language packs is going to be?
I don't think so.

>> Shouldn't we issue a warning on Windows and install to
>> "OpenOffice.org 2.1" by default as on Unix ? Users willing to take
>> the risk might still choose the "OpenOffice.org 2.0" manually.
> How big is the risk, actually?
See my answer above. Any conjunction of code and string lists might be a
problem. Currently I can not think of anything more, since resources
missing completely in one language should get taken from  default
language already, but I am not an expert in this area.

Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Oliver Braun
Ollie,

Oliver Braun wrote:

> Hi Kay,
>
> Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
>> Oliver Braun wrote:
>>> Assuming that users might have language packs installed in their OOs
>>> 2.0.x, the result when updating will be platform dependant:
>>>
>>> * on Windows, the installer will detect the existing 2.0.4 and
>>> propose "OpenOffice.org 2.0" as destination directory instead =>
>>> language packs still there, but potentially incompatible (might even
>>> lead to crashes).
>> What does "potentially" mean? Does it vary with the language, or do we
>> just don't know?
> It should not vary with the language, but with the amount of changes
> made. A good candidate for crashes or unexpected behavior would be to
> remove a tab page in Tools - Options: since the tree view to the left is
> loaded from the old language pack resource, but the code for the
> corresponding page is no longer there, any attempt to create this page
> will lead to a crash (or bring up another page if the id had been re-used).
So, 2.1 and further 2.x releases are (going to be) incompatible wrt
language packes, if not explicitly taken care of (read, no GUI changes)
correct? In other words that means, that we can not simply update an 2.y
with an 2.x (x < y), and therefor we shouldn't offer it.
>
>
> Oliver
Kay

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Mathias Bauer-6
In reply to this post by Oliver Braun
Oliver Braun <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi *,
>
>with the move to the new numbering schema also the default installation
>directory changes from "OpenOffice.org 2.0" to "OpenOffice.org 2.1"
>resp. from "openoffice.org2.0" to "openoffice.org2.1".

Perhaps we should stop using directory names containing version
numbers? Firefox e.g. always installs into the same directory (on
Windows it's "program files\Mozilla Firefox"). What's the point in
keeping the version numbers in the directory names? Would be
interesting to ask the Firefox developers if they experienced any user
problems or complaints.

Besides that:

>Assuming that users might have language packs installed in their OOs
>2.0.x, the result when updating will be platform dependant:
>
>* on Windows, the installer will detect the existing 2.0.4 and propose
>"OpenOffice.org 2.0" as destination directory instead => language packs
>still there, but potentially incompatible (might even lead to crashes).
>
>* on Unix, the default directory "openoffice.org2.1" will be used,
>resulting in a naked OOo 2.1 with the language packs still present in
>"openoffice.org2.0".
>
>
>Shouldn't we issue a warning on Windows and install to "OpenOffice.org
>2.1" by default as on Unix ? Users willing to take the risk might still
>choose the "OpenOffice.org 2.0" manually.

This would be acceptable as a stop gap solution. In alignment with my
idea from above and also as a clearer approach: can we find a way to
disable/deinstall language packs?

Ciao,
Mathias

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Caolán McNamara
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 12:53 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Oliver Braun <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Hi *,
> >
> >with the move to the new numbering schema also the default installation
> >directory changes from "OpenOffice.org 2.0" to "OpenOffice.org 2.1"
> >resp. from "openoffice.org2.0" to "openoffice.org2.1".
>
> Perhaps we should stop using directory names containing version
> numbers? Firefox e.g. always installs into the same directory (on
> Windows it's "program files\Mozilla Firefox"). What's the point in
> keeping the version numbers in the directory names? Would be
> interesting to ask the Firefox developers if they experienced any user
> problems or complaints.

extra programs e.g. liferea that piggy-back on firefox continually need
to update to track the firefox install location, it's a pain in the ass
for it to change every micro install. At least we don't change on every
micro, but change on the medium.

Of course distro's have to change the /opt of the default install to
somewhere else as it's not an /opt package when it comes with the OS
from a distro, so it's not really going to be a standard location
anyway, so it doesn't affect us too much what it gets called.

C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Oliver Braun
In reply to this post by Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
> So, 2.1 and further 2.x releases are (going to be) incompatible wrt
> language packes, if not explicitly taken care of (read, no GUI
> changes) correct? In other words that means, that we can not simply
> update an 2.y with an 2.x (x < y), and therefor we shouldn't offer it.
After talking to PL, the situation seems not to be as bad as originally
thought: due to a fallback handling per resource id, some of the changed
UI may look a bit strange, but should not cause any crashes. New dialogs
might appear completely untranslated.

I don't know whether this is an acceptable interim solution for users of
language packs.

- Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [installation-dev] Updating to OOo 2.1 & language packs

Oliver Braun
In reply to this post by Mathias Bauer-6
Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Oliver Braun <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> Hi *,
>>
>> with the move to the new numbering schema also the default installation
>> directory changes from "OpenOffice.org 2.0" to "OpenOffice.org 2.1"
>> resp. from "openoffice.org2.0" to "openoffice.org2.1".
>>    
>
> Perhaps we should stop using directory names containing version
> numbers? Firefox e.g. always installs into the same directory (on
> Windows it's "program files\Mozilla Firefox"). What's the point in
> keeping the version numbers in the directory names?
What about files edited by the admin ? Before making this move we should
evaluate what each installer curently does with such files and whether
we better should flag those as "config" files in the installer database.

> Would be
> interesting to ask the Firefox developers if they experienced any user
> problems or complaints.
>
> Besides that:
>
>  
>> Assuming that users might have language packs installed in their OOs
>> 2.0.x, the result when updating will be platform dependant:
>>
>> * on Windows, the installer will detect the existing 2.0.4 and propose
>> "OpenOffice.org 2.0" as destination directory instead => language packs
>> still there, but potentially incompatible (might even lead to crashes).
>>
>> * on Unix, the default directory "openoffice.org2.1" will be used,
>> resulting in a naked OOo 2.1 with the language packs still present in
>> "openoffice.org2.0".
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't we issue a warning on Windows and install to "OpenOffice.org
>> 2.1" by default as on Unix ? Users willing to take the risk might still
>> choose the "OpenOffice.org 2.0" manually.
>>    
>
> This would be acceptable as a stop gap solution. In alignment with my
> idea from above and also as a clearer approach: can we find a way to
> disable/deinstall language packs?
>  
On Unix we could introduce exact version dependencies, so that the
office update will need a --force if language packs are present. The
Windows installer could show an appropriate warning message during the
installation to give the user a choice.

- Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]