Hi Marcus, *... On 05/28/2010 01:12 PM, Marcus Lange wrote: > Kay Schenk wrote: > > Hello Kay, > >> OK, I am still looking at the proposal to include the JRE checkbox on >> the download button, and I would like to again bring up an issue I >> brought up well almost a yr ago now. >> >> * why do we *by default* include a JRE? I still would argue this is NOT >> a good idea or necessary for the most part > > I was told that the installer needs Java to work, at least on Unix.
OK, I see what you're saying...but what I'm suggesting is that we try to see if the user already has Java, and if not...lead them to it and NOT provide it. Really, I think bundled JREs were quite popular at one time, but I don't think they are now. Applications I've installed that need JRE's to install (Oracle's DB products are a good example), attempt to find a JRE and use it...see more below. This would *significantly* simplify our download pack maintenance if we simply didn't provide bundles with the JRE. > >> * ok, we, by default include a JRE but well, where do we tell them which >> version it is. Shouldn't this be in the "Release Notes"? > > We try to include alawys the latest that is available. But is there a > need to tell the enduser which JRE version is used? IMHO OOo is able to > to use any of the 1.6 series. > > However, the CWS that updates to the most recent JRE is listed in the > Release Notes (depends on the milestone). But there is no extra hint > that shows the version which of course can be added at the top. > >> * I really think it would be better to check for some kind of JRE >> already installed and "alert" the user that we don't *think* have it and >> they should install it for "full" functionality if they don't have it. > > This would mean a (maybe complete) rebuild of the installer which is not > planned currently. > >> And, some details on what will happen if they don't have it are >> explained on this page: >> (see http://download.openoffice.org/common/java.html -- and this full >> functionality is NOT explained) >> >> but not all. > > Yes, we could try to make the list complete. > >> I had been working on the java detection part a while back with mixed >> results. But, at the worst, the process seemed to fail on the false >> positive side (had JRE but not detected) rather than the other way >> around. I know the additional JRE probably doesn't take up a lot of room >> really, but it's a question of security and maintenance as far as I'm >> concerned. >> >> Thoughts/comments? >> >> I can probably get the new idea to work...but...I'm still not convinced >> this is really the best approach. And, I think it would far better to >> spell out what the consequences will be is you don't have a JRE. > > This was already tried in the past. Maybe you could take this to release > meeting? And? and, I don't know how to "take this to release meeting". Help! and thanks for your reply. > > Best regards > > Marcus > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- ============================================================ Kay Schenk "#51: Sometimes, you're wrong." -- from the rules of Jethro Gibbs, "NCIS" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
