Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 22:36 +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
To me it looks a bit ugly, but it could be just a question of replacing
the binaries/files that differ from last version. I don't know enough
about this to say if it's a Good Idea or a Bad Idea (tm)

Inherently unreliable. The only thing you *could* do is to compare the
generated files and only ship those which did.

It seems to end up with the problem being Windows lacking a system-wide
package management system, and 

- no one wants to make such a system just for libreoffice
- it's more work figuring out the problems that probably will arise from
an "upgrade package" than actually just installing the newer version of
openoffice.

These would probably be good reasons to give if anyone asks? #1 answer
also puts the responsibility for building a package management system to
where it belongs: the system owners, Microsoft.

Arno

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.