[odf-discuss] Idea for "ODF Viewer Beta 2"

[Lars D. Noodén]

"make install" is a good option to leave available so that the view can be 
ported or tweaked.  People that might need that method are ones that would 
benefit us.  However, I agree that it should not be promoted as the 
primary means of installation.

Having at least .rpm and .deb files for RPM and APT based distros would be 
very helpful.  That would be a precondition to getting into a commonly 
used repository like those used by Debian or Ubuntu or even RPMfind:
 	http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/mirrors.html

I used to make some custom packages for both RPM and APT, it's not hard 
once you have the method down, but it has been some years since the last 
time.  Slackware and Gentoo users that speak up might be able to help us 
support those distros, so I'd look at is as a way to get more support.

I can't do anything these days without lots of notes, but if there are 
instructions, I can do make packages for Ubuntu (PPC) now and 
for the near future.

Curious to hear about how it went with autopackage.

-Lars
Lars Noodén
 	Ensure access to your data in the future
 	http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
[snip]
> * For Linux I would like to try Autopackage http://autopackage.org
> Autopackage essentially makes an installer for Linux. I think it's
> better than the alternatives:
>
> 1. 'make install' => Not really appropriate for end users. Not because
> they are too dumb, but because it just doesn't feel like a polished
> product.
>
> 2. native packages => The only problem is that there are several package
> formats. I would likely end up making a DEB and an RPM and put up with
> complaints from Slackware and Gentoo users because I'm ignoring them.
>
> Also, the viewer seems like a good candidate for Autopackage because it
> is a very self-contained application.
[snip]