Hi Christian,
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:
Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,
..
No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer.
So - thus far we have:
Norbert, Thorsten and
Nguyen Vu Hung & Martin Srebotnjak
pro this, and you against it. So - looking at your rational:
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 ].
The Mac OSX no-lang installer is currently 180Mb
The Windows all-lang installer is currently 215Mb
That looks like 20% larger to me - for all languages; and given the
existing 15Mb lang+help packs on Mac, the difference between
distributing l10n+help together, and bundling all l10n, while splitting
help (assuming most people don't download extra help-packs) is: 10%
[ not a like for like comparison but not a huge growth ;-].
The good news is, that in 3.3.1 we will save another handful of
megabytes from the multi-lang install set[1] - so it is sub 20%, and by
3.4 I hope to be very similar in size to the equivalent OO.o with no
languages bundled.
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 ?
And to changing the installer type:
No idea about that - it sounds bad from your description :-)
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.
ATB,
Michael.
[1] - unless that is consumed by new languages, lets see.
--
michael.meeks@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Context
- Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ... (continued)
Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ... · Michael Meeks
[libreoffice-l10n] Re: [Libreoffice] Mac builds / lang-packs ... · Thorsten Behrens
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.