Hi Jay, *, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Jay Philips <philip...@hotmail.com> wrote: > […] >> + unclear what the future holds here: Snap, FlatPack, AppImage (Michael) > > If its Libreoffice future, i believe AppImage will be it, as it provides > similar functionality as the portable version found on windows, like > > 1) not having to install it on your system to run it (aka portable)
No need to install for TDF builds either. > 2) copying it on a usb and run it on any linux distro (atleast the minimum > system that LO supports, something that snap and flatpak cant do) can do that with the TDF builds as well. > 3) easily running multiple versions (would improve linux QA, as it would also > lower that barrier for users to test old versions) can do that with the TDF builds as well. >> + no real need for Linux portable edition (Cloph) >> + tar-ball can be unzipped. > > This is fine for advanced linux users but not for basic linux users, > including those from windows or mac. The tar-ball doesnt even come with a > simple extract or install bash script, Not true, there's and install script that could be used, but even t hat is not necessary since you can simply extract the packages themselves. for i in *rpm; do rpm2cpio $i | cpio -idmv ; done with appimage you'd also have to use the console/terminal/whatever to make it executable for example, so whether you have instructions that read "run chmod +x <file-you-donwloaded>" or tell them to run any other command/one-liner for that matter doesn't really make a difference im my book. >> + some people may want it do why not ? (Heiko) >> + up-loading takes time, maintenance etc. (Cloph) > > The .tar.gz to .appimage bash conversion script can be run directly on the > webserver, so that would eliminate any uploading time. But it seems that every language needs its own full installset, and t hat is a no-go for actual redistribution. >> + if 2 people use it – build it themselves pwrt. daily builds. > > Quite sure more than 2 people will use it, as i would be one of them, Exaggeration to make a point. And flatpak has a different approach/has repository style backing, but even that is not a general purpose distribution at the moment. And for TDF builds flatpak also has deminshing returns, since the main benefit of the dependencies are already taken care of.. >> + the request is “become a linux distribution” (Michael) >> + flat-pack doesn’t include the GNOME run-time (Stephan) >> + AppImage sounds like it will include ~everything: >> Gstreamer + all codecs etc. - from some random PC (Michael) > > No the appimage will only include the same files LO bundles in the released > .deb and .rpm files found in the .tar.gz. It assumes the users system has the > necessary other dependencies on their system. Then no added benefit. > […] >> + AppImage works hard to solve a problem we already solved: >> of being an ISV on Linux – it is hard but solveable. > > Appimage tries to solve a major problem on linux, easily running an app on > any linux distro, Again: Already solved by TDF builds by using a baseline that doesn't introduce runtime issues. The major problem doesn't exist for LibreOffice. For other software that is a selling point, but LO already has solved this problem in a different way. Just answer: Why should I convert to an appimage, if I could also could just create a tarball or iso-image or similar of the extracted rpm packages? Same effect for LO. Add a link to toplevel so people don't need to browse to opt/libreoffice/program to launch, but then it's the same thing, right? ciao Christian _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
