Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
Hi
I'm forwarding this to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] project. Sorry for the
delay...
Louis
On 2005-10-21, at 12:10 , Alvin Kennedy wrote:
If the developers are not willing to revert back to
the original installer, please discuss addressing the
following issues:
1) Explain to the community the justification for
moving to rpm based installation packages. This is a
potentially divisive issue in the community.
please have a look at
http://development.openoffice.org/releases/q-concept.html. That document
describes all the concepts and plans for the OpenOffice.org 2.0 release.
I don't think it is a divisive issue. With the current way of doing
installation we are pretty flexible in integrating other requirements
(like for example FreeBSD or MacOS installation). If somebody is
striving for even other ways of installation then he or she should
consider to contribute them.
2) Label the packages as rpm instead of tar. You
wouldn't want someone labeling a .odf formatted file
.doc.
The download file *is* a compressed tar file that contains rpm's. That
leads to a .tar.gz suffix. So your comparison is a bit unfair.
I CC the releases list as the name of the download file is not really
under control of the installation project. Hopefully the name of the
file can be improved or it can be made more obvious from the download page.
best regards
Christof
Thank you for considering this issue, which IMHO is
only generating unnecessary resentment in the
community. This is the time for us all to come
together to celebrate a really great piece of open
soource software.
Thank you
Alvin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
