https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68274
--- Comment #35 from Nathan Yee <ny.nathan....@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #34)
> Does the work on MAR-based LO updater for Windows account for the case when
> LO for Windows is initially installed using MSI (the prevalent majority
> case, mandatory for enterprise deployment)?
>
> I ask because the updater should not break mandatory MSI functionality, such
> as:
>
> 1. Add/remove components of installed software. This could be broken if we
> simply replace some files in installation directory:
> 1.1. If we simply replace a file 1-to-1, then removing a feature with that
> file and then adding it again will restore old file from MSI kept in
> Windows\Installer directory, which is undesirable at least, and can prevent
> from working because of incompatibilities of different versions of different
> files trying to work together. Also, installer may detect different version
> of a file, and work improperly;
> 1.2. If an update wants to add new files or remove existing, this is another
> sort of problems for installer trying to add/remove features.
>
> 2. Uninstall the software: if the updater had added new files to
> installation, then uninstaller must not have those files (that it knows
> nothing about) left in Program Files after uninstall (or it will be bad UX).
>
> 3. Repair/reinstall: I suppose it's obvious what problems may be encountered
> here, least of those is unexpected reverting to an older version.
I do not know if the work I did on the updater accounts for these changes. It
has been a while since I have worked on the updater, and in hindsight I believe
that it would have been a better idea to use an existing software updating
framework instead of porting Mozilla's updater. From what I remember seeing,
their implementation was tightly coupled to Firefox and thus I think it would
have been much cleaner and safer to use a different approach for an LO update
mechanism.
I would personally recommend scrapping the existing work on the updater and
looking into an alternative framework such as Sparkle.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
