On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org > wrote:
> @Kay, > > Yes, that installation-guide page is very out of date. > > Did you ever look at this page: < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Win-en-x86-Setup>. > > I have additional clean screen shots, all using the released Apache > OpenOffice 3.4.0, and I need to update those images and the related remarks > where there is now a difference. They could be used for a how-to, as > opposed to the QA analysis, which I need to update with the new shots and > any changed observations. > no...I did not see this. Thanks for pointing it out. I would LOVE to just link the Windows install section to a separate page like this. > > The only way to change the install location is by selecting Custom Install > at the appropriate point, and then looking at the dialog corner where the > install location can be changed. Unfortunately, I have learned not to > trust that option because there were so many releases (not OO.o) that > failed because the code had dependencies that were messed up. > > For Apache OpenOffice, this can change the directory in Program Files but > I don't think it will do much for application data in the User folder or > the Windows registry. So the User Profile, the extension cache and > probably other things will be interfered with if there is an older > OpenOffice.org 3.x.x that the user wants to keep running. (AOO 3.4 usurps > the hidden Application Data/OpenOffice/3/user/ ... subfolder.) > > I think I'll focus on the file-association problem right now, because it > is something that appears to be clear-cut and easy to remedy. > > - Dennis > > PS: I did reserve a MediaWiki HowTo page for Windows installation of the > OO.o 3.3.0 patch, but did not find time for the amount of work it takes to > account for the differences between Windows XP and Windows Vista/7/8. I > suppose this is a good place for details on Windows installation also. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 17:18 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < > dennis.hamil...@acm.org > > wrote: > > > @Kay, > > > > I believe the dialog is still there for optionally setting associations > > for .doc, .ppt, and .xls works. I should double-check that too. But > there > > is definitely no detection that .odt, .ods, .odp, etc., are already > > assigned to an application other than OpenOffice.org, and no polite > request > > or warning. > > > > oh -- I see > > > > > > I need to do this on purpose under repeatable test conditions and capture > > details for a bug report. But I have seen it too often without warning > of > > any kind during installs I was conducting for other purposes. > > > > - Dennis > > > > (It is too late to complain about the silent, automatic removal of > earlier > > OO.o versions. It would have been good to follow the LibreOffice > precedent > > of having OpenOffice3.4 start its own install directory, etc., just as > the > > 3.x versions of LO do.) > > > > Yeah-- I don't think that's happening for Linux. I included a "to do" on > this for Linux users on the revised Install Guide I put out today as it's > basically required to get things to work. > > I don't work on windows. Install instructions for Linux state where the > installation will go. Many Linux folks know how to control the actual > installation area if they want to. > > Dennis, it might be very helpful for you to make some changes to the > Windows install instructions in-- > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html > > to address some of your concerns. If you have them, I'm sure others do too. > You could add in there how to install to an alternate area, etc. > > I didn't spend any time at all looking at the Windows information, and > didn't receive feedback about a month ago when I first started working on > this. > Please fix as you see the need. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 15:43 > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org > > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < > > dennis.hamil...@acm.org > > > wrote: > > > > > I am not changing anything. I don't think there is any such thing as > > > owning file names and it is too late to claim them now. And that > doesn't > > > matter. What matters is the impact on users and on the cost of > > supporting > > > them with the present arrangement. > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > PS: I am also annoyed by the heavy-handed way that AOO 3.4.0 stomps on > > > existing file associations too. > > > > > > > no advance warning? asking politely? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 13:56 > > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org > > > Subject: Re: Linux install issues > > > > > > Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 19:32 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: > > > > > > One enduring solution would be to break with the past and not > use > > > the same file names for the binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., > > any > > > longer. That would solve a few problems on Windows too. > > > > > > > > > I think we own the name and we are probably not the project who should > > > change any names. > > > We should be careful with this kind of changes because we can > potentially > > > break a lot of existing projects who rely on names, registry entries > etc. > > > > > > So please be careful with such changes without deeper analysis what > > > depends in this... > > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:01 > > > To: ooo-dev > > > Subject: Linux install issues > > > > > > Hi all-- > > > > > > It seems we are running into a number of very difficult problems > > > with Linux > > > installs, the latest just e-mailed to this list this morning, > due > > > to the > > > way some vendors have installed LO. > > > > > > see: > > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/qz72ouzjvcm7uyfn > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to provide additional help in the install guide: > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html > > > > > > but I'm at a loss as to what this should say. > > > > > > I took a look at SOME of the postings on the support forums and > > > well, still > > > at a loss. Generally, it seems that completely uninstall the old > > > OOo 3.3 is > > > a given (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), but how to > > > handle some > > > of the LO overlap? > > > > > > Can we get some opinions on what's the most accurate way to go > > about > > > installing AOO 3.4 on linux? > > > > > > * completely de-install LO first? install AOO 3.4, the > re-install > > > LO? > > > * completely de-install old OOo 3.3? and then? > > > > > > Thankfully, I did not run into these kinds of issues with my > > distro. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MzK > > > > > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > > > -- Mark Twain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > MzK > > > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > > -- Mark Twain > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > -- Mark Twain > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." -- Mark Twain
