incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:38:36 GMT
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas <> wrote:
> On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'll put it to you quickly simple.  If you have been paying attention
>> you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues.
> I have been paying attention. Have you?
> In the thread "Calling all volunteers: It is time to test" you wrote
>   "We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on
> clean OS installs,
>   as upgrades to previous versions of OOo."  and
>   "Please send a short note to the telling us
> what platform and
>   scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to
> LibreOffice, etc.)."
> I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the
> extensions in my user profile.
> Dennis started this thread "[EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all
> volunteers: It is time to test)" to discuss if  releases of AOO should
> overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions.
> Does this not require discussion?

This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4
plan.  We discussed it extensively in early December.  Certainly if
you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new
code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it.  But if you are
just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the
list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first.  Search
for "berkeleydb".

In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding.  The
issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is
overwriting a profile or anything like that.  It is not, as you say.
that we are "deleting all installed extensions".  The issue is that
the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db
database file.  We had to remove berkeleydb because of its
incompatible license.  So the database file is there, but, even after
an upgrade, but we're not able to read it.  That is why the extensions
need to be reinstalled.

>> Those
>> are the only changes we're making right now.  Release blocking issues
>> are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set.
>> You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking.  You
>> can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not
>> accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ.
> Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite,
> OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are
> you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made?

This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the
removal of berkeleydb.  I think we're all open to better ideas and
better proposals if you have them.  But please also have some respect
for those who looked into this issue in detail previously.

>> But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be
>> reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this
>> project for nearly 6 months now.  But no one has cared to do anything
>> about it.  And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not
>> even as of today.
> And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem.
> Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from
> tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing
> user support.

Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and
then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all
love to hear them.



> --
> _________________________________
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website:
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
> theirs." - Edgard Varese

View raw message