Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:24 am Post subject: Re: ~/Library/Fonts
sardisson wrote:
Should the script have moved .ttfs in ~/Library/Fonts to OOo, too, or is this still an issue to be addressed in the future?
The problem would have resulted in those not getting copied over. The next one that I'm putting together shoudl fix it. I hope to have that new one available sometime today. I just had to crash around 5 AM and couldn't finish it...
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: OOo 1.1.2 GM Candidate for Test
OPENSTEP wrote:
Terry Teague wrote:
might be a better indicator of exactly what version of OOo 1.1.2 people have. I tend to use underscores to separate parts of filenames that might be hard to read.
I'll definitely use the underscores to separate it a bit better.
One of the things that may be overlooked is that I do try to put some type of versioning information in the readme file.
One brief comment on putting build date/etc. in the dimage filename (which I realize is not what you're suggesting in the pgh above): Coming at such names with the perspective of an "average" Mac user, who, depending on your perspective, may or may not be the target for this installer, dated versioning often suggests an unfinished/not ready for prime-time build. This obviously isn't the case in the Unix world, and maybe the above types of users shouldn't/wouldn't be installing OOo--I don't know--but I think average Mac users are used to the X.y.z numeric versioning convention. In my own experience, I came upon OOo in late Sept or Oct 2003 and downloaded 1.0.3GM since it had been a couple of months since its release and there wasn't a newer one; "GM" to me means "almost final," i.e., it will be renamed "final" and released if no last-minute/big bugs are found, but there may be some.
Perhaps a name like "ooo112_jag_pan_final.dmg" and then the build date/etc. in the readme will satisfy both the "build-tracking" needs and the "indicating clearly that this is a final, 'supported' version" needs?
Just a thought/perspective.
OPENSTEP wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the extra testing and 60 megs or so of download is well worth saving the *huge* amount of support headaches that can arise from sending multiple installer versions forth into the wild at the same time. But that may just be the pragmatic engineer in me coming forth .
I agree--and I'm not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination
Smokey
(er, this ended up being not-so-brief, sorry--don't want to keep you up till 5 again)
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
.