incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Larry Gusaas <larry.gus...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:44:33 GMT

On 2012-03-05 4:38 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
> 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".

The problem with the database was known. The fact that you were planning to release a version

that overwrote OOo and erased the extensions in the user profile was not clear until you asked

for testing. And now you are complaining about us reporting the problems found.

> 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 a misunderstanding. I never said that 3.4 was overwriting my user profile. It is

deleting all the extensions in my user profile. The folder that contained them is empty.

> It is not, as you say. that we are "deleting all installed extensions". 

Then why is the folder that contained them empty? Installing 3.4 does exactly what I said
it does.

> 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.

It was? Then you better look at changing it, unless you want a bunch of disgruntled users
on 
your hands.

You asked for reports on installing as an overwrite and now you are trying to dismiss reports

of the problems it causes.

>>> 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.

And I suggest you learn to be less condescending.

-- 
_________________________________

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



Mime
View raw message