Re: [Libreoffice] [libreoffice-l10n] Re: Mac builds / lang-packs ...

Hi Michael, *,

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 16:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung <vuhung16plus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you
> > be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to
> > only having to install one package?"
>
>        So - I guess he would have said "yes", but he is perhaps an outlier;
> then again - why do you think it would be more than twice the current
> size ? [ clearly we would split the help packs as on windows ].

Yes, split the help-pack and then again it is not one single installer anymore.

I still regard help as a core component, and still dislike the rip-out
of the help-packages from the languagepacks.

So count at least 10MB of help for each language, and you cannot hold
your 20% increase in size.

>        So - I agree; if it were double the size it would be bad :-) but are
> you completely opposed to a 20% growth, for much greater convenience for
> the common case ?

Well, there it comes in conflict with the change of installer, I don't
think a package installer is of greater convenience for the common
user, and just installing all languages would increase the required
disk-space quite a bit. So then it is not only about size of the
installer, but also size on disk.

> > And to changing the installer type:
>
>        No idea about that - it sounds bad from your description :-)

yes. I initially tried to use it for the languagepacks and got
frustrated very quickly and resorted to the script that just extracts
a tarball method instead.
(even there with dirty tricks to bypass the artificial limitation of
not allowing user-interaction when creating an applescript/osascript
bundle, wrapping the same stuff in a shell-script that calls osascript
on the very same applescript works just fine)

> > But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages,
> > for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on
> > other platforms...
>
>        Heh - so; what I hear here is:
>
>        "if you can fix the size, we should do it"
>
>        is that fair ? if so, it sounds like an issue to fix in 3.4.

Well - if you can do it....

Having one big installer would be more favorable for BitTorrent, so
from this POV I'm in favor of getting rid of the small languagepacks
:-) (thankfully help is still included in the langaugepacks for mac)

So I don't veto it, but the size has to go down.
Splitting Mac in installer and seperate languagepack and seperate
helppack would be much, much worse, so having a huge installer is the
lesser of two evils...

ciao
Christian