[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Comments? (OpenOffice.org Dictionaries)



Am Mo, den 12.04.2004 schrieb Miloslav Trmac um 17:15:
> Hello,
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:31:55AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
[...]
> 
> > It may well be from a distribution standpoint that DicOOo is the best
> > way to go since it empowers users to install only what they need, and
> > makes it easily available.  However, it has a few drawbacks (none fatal
> > I think): its basically a big macro, some people are uneasy about that,
> > and there is also no guarantee how long the information it uses will be
> > up online.
> * It requires additional manual action after installation (consider kickstart)
>   Post-install scripts would probably not be able to use DicOOo, so they would
>   have to mostly reimplement the language RPMs
> * It does not collaborate with the RPM package database
> * <paranoid>Users might download a malicious "dicOOo" script from something
>   that looks like a legitimate openoffice.org mirror</paranoid>

++ on these points. I used DicOOo two or there times and was not very
comfortable with it... 


> > Looking forward as the Fedora Core / Red Hat maintainer of the OOo
> > packages, what do people think I should do?
> Given all the above (and the fact that Czech was included in the main
> package in previous releases :) I'd prefer language packages (we do have
> about 400 MB left on the fourth CD, after all), but I understand
> that's additional work to be done.

What about delivering the "widespread" languages as rpm with Fedora Core
and put the other in fedora-extras?

CU
thl



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]