Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de
 designates 213.209.103.15 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <508B131C.5030801@wtnet.de>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:47:56 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cleanup installation files, make them more modular
References: <508808ED.8020106@gmail.com> <20121026172842.GA23301@localhost>
 <508AFB65.4090006@wtnet.de> <20121026223336.GA29880@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20121026223336.GA29880@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Am 10/27/2012 12:33 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:06:45PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> I've modified the subject as I think this topic deserves its own,
>> new thread.
>>
>> Am 10/26/2012 07:28 PM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 05:27:41PM +0200, J�rgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> Once thing to pay attention for the next release is the increasing size:
>>> more than 14 Gb for Linux packages only. This is going to be even more,
>>> as more languages are added. INFRA has already complained after the
>>> first release (can't find the message right now) about the size of our
>>> dist/ folder, so we must think about a solution, before they complain
>>> once the next release is uploaded.
>>
>> IMHO you can think and try whatever you want. At the end there is
>> only one solution:
>>
>> Cleanup the packaging, delete redundat files, rearrange how the
>> install files will be packed, think new how the installation on the
>> users-side could be done.
>>
>> Example:
>> For every platform, we have exactly the same files in every full
>> install, except for the language resource files. So, when we can
>> make it that only the core (languages-independent) files are once on
>> the mirrors and then the language resource files besides, then it
>> would be possible to do the installation process completely new -
>> with the following rough steps:
>>
>> 1. Create a new basis installer: little, tiny and already localized.
>> 2. The user can choose what he wants: applications, languages,
>> templates, extensions.
>> 3. The basis installer downloads this file set from the mirrors.
>
> I've read this approach the other times this was discussed. While this
> might be the current mainstream market trend, handy for those who send
> their e-mails from their i-Phones and their i-Pads, it won't be suitable
> for users from less-developed countries with bad internet connection.
>
> Does OpenOffice user base come from this kind of countries? These
> numbers don't seem to tell so:
> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/countries.html But I've also read "why
> would someone use OpenOffice if he/she can pay for MS Office?", meaning
> that OpenOffice user base is made of people who can't afford MS Office,
> we could also asume they can't afford a good internet connection, even
> on developed countries like the top 7 in the list (this argument missed
> the point than someone may want to use OpenOffice just because it's free
> software, even if can pay for MS Office - or get an ilegal copy).

I don't see the context to bad inet connections. Maybe you can tell with 
some other words?

When we do the restructure then we will have less content on the 
mirrors. But for the user there is no change as they still have to 
download all files that are necessary to do the installation; maybe less 
when they explicitely disables some applications and content that are 
currently be installed by default.

Marcus