Comments? (OpenOffice.org Dictionaries)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 01:08:14PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > An argument against individual i18n files is that if you have an errata
> > for OpenOffice.org, the you have to do the QA process and errata _every_
> > single one of the i18n packages too, which is more administrative
> > overhead.

Just take a look at the update dates on the dictionnary download page.
They are *not* synched with oo.o releases.

In fact for some of them you could have an unchanged rpm for several FC
releases. That screams low maintenance packages to me.

And speaking as a lowly end-user, I'd rather search a bit for a spelling
package than learn yet another way to update my system (after
emacs/xemacs autoupdate, moz plugins, perl cpan, java maven, and so on).
Get real people ! Any single specialized update system will always be
simpler than a generic one like rpm. The problem with specialized
updaters is they pile up quicker than people can master them - even MS
realized lately this was no way to make system administration scale. Not
to mention they usually lack half the security/hardening features of
rpm.

I think the Gnome people have demonstrated pretty well people prefer
consistency to one-off displays of creativity.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20040412/5107e6b0/attachment-0002.bin