incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:24:34 GMT
It is one thing to encourage users to remove their older versions.

It is another thing to automatically remove them and, along with that, features that they
are relying upon.

I don't think the ability of OO.o to replace versions in the same line (i.e., 3.* -- and 3.*
did not remove 2.* and 1.* as far as I know) is the proper precedent.  I think how LibreOffice
endeavored not to do that with their first and subsequent releases is the proper precedent.
 This is not about wearing the crown, it is about serving the user community.  

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:09
Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early incubator releases
should not overload prior versions of OO.o.  I recommend that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations
and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning.  (My recommendation would
be that it do that anyhow.  But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, that
becomes imperative.)

In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on
desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security
hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained.
We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them
with the AOO 3.4.  This is true even given the inconvenience the user
experiences from the need to reinstall extensions.

In any case, I think the overwrite is fine.  It is what OOo 3.3 and
OOo 3.2 did as well by default.  We can document in the install
intructions how this can be overridden.

> I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as well.  It is now
clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke more of it.

If you are volunteering to re-write the extension manager client
database support, please speak up and let us know your plan.

> I also suspect that it is not a good idea to rebrand the Extensions and Templates pages
at SourceForge quite so strongly, since the only extensions that are there now are for OO.o
(and perhaps LibreOffice).
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J├╝rgen Schmidt []
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 02:06
> To:
> Subject: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test
> On 3/2/12 6:38 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About
>>> box. If the revision shown there matches the build you installed
>>> (e..g, "r1293550") then the install was a success. Please send a short
>>> note to telling us what platform and
>>> scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to
>>> LibreOffice, etc.). This will help us understand what scenarios have
>>> already been attempted and which have not.
>> Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8
>> Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
>> Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3
>> Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo
>> and replaced extension folder in my profile from my backup copy.
>> Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will try installed
>> individual extensions later today.
> Hi Larry,
> unfortunately extensions get lost because of the dropped Berkeley DB
> which was used to manage installed extensions. We haven't found a simple
> solution to migrate it. This will be documented in the release notes.
> Sorry
> Juergen
>> All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in
>> Writer. The one database I have works. Will do further testing later.

View raw message