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

Re: openoffice

On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:53 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <goemon anime net> wrote:
> > Why not make both available? After all, fedora includes both gcc3.x and
> > gcc4, although gcc4 definitely has issues.
> how big are the gcc3.x and gcc4.x package sets?
> how big are the openoffice.org packages?  
> Considering the size of openoffice I think it would be irresponsible
> to choose to ship multiple versions of it in Core considering the need
> to be respectful of overall bloat.
> There is also a question of confusing the target audience.
> Requiring the target audience of a compiler to know the difference
> between gcc3 and gcc4 is a small burden.
> Requiring the target audience of oo.org  or other end-user application
> to understand the difference between the 2 versions of the same
> application being offered in Core  would in my estimation be a much
> larger burden on the target group and cause significant confusion.
> I don't think  its really worth providing multiple versions of the
> same 'large' end-user application at all. Either oo.org 2.0 ships with
> fc4 or it doesn't.. it will clearly be in fc5. In the meantime the
> maintainer should make the appropriate choice and pick one version of
> the application to ship in fc4 based on the experience with the
> codebase and the expected maintainership burden for fc4 updates.
> Damned if you do... damned if you don't.

Since the current timelines are such that there may be a minimal amount
of time between the release of FC4 final and OO.org 2.0 final, would it
be reasonable to consider making OO.org 2.0 available as an update to
FC4 when ready? 

Or is that such a significant update, that it would be against FC
philosophy to include it as an update and only make it available with a
new FC release?

I am just raising the possibility that with roughly 6 months between FC
releases, it means that folks would need to wait almost until the end of
the year to take advantage of significant new functionality in OO.org.

I agree though, that both version should not be included. It's just way
too big.


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