Mac builds / lang-packs ...

l10n
#1

Hi guys,

  At FOSDEM I was approached by someone annoyed with having to download
the main binary and a language pack to get the Mac version to work in
German; and I was wondering - are we assuming our Mac users are that
technical ? [ his point was, that his Father was not ;-].

  Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,
and have an optional help-pack ?

  I forget if this was already discussed to death :wink: but nothing like
listening to our users.

  ATB,

    Michael.

#2

Hi,

       Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues)
to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,
and have an optional help-pack ?

I thought that was the goal of the LO dev team to follow the Windows example
on Linux and OS X. If that is not the case, then you should get back to
en-US language builds and full lang packs as with those two OS's. Why should
Windows builds be different? Why would users of some OS be treated "better"
or "worse" than the others?

There is no sense in having the app installer behave differently on
different OS's. It was a good thing about OOo that it behaved the same on
several systems. And you felt pretty at home with the install sets on any of
them.

LO 3.4 should be a definite answer to the question of (online/offline) LO
help system for all OS's. The current non-working online help (for all non
en-US languages) is a good example of not thinking everything through before
going doing it.

While the media was sympathetic to LO on its 3.3 launch, its 3.4 it will be
awaited with very sharp pencils - let's see what they really offer! The L10N
must work out of the box and non-en-US speaking users should all be happy
with the help system/installation process implemented in LO34.

Lp, m.

#3

Hi guys,

At FOSDEM I was approached by someone annoyed with having to download
the main binary and a language pack to get the Mac version to work in
German; and I was wondering - are we assuming our Mac users are that
technical ? [ his point was, that his Father was not ;-].

Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,
and have an optional help-pack ?

I do think that it would be nicer and more 'mac-like' to have a single dmg

Norbert

#4

Hi guys,

At FOSDEM I was approached by someone annoyed with having to download
the main binary and a language pack to get the Mac version to work in
German; and I was wondering - are we assuming our Mac users are that
technical ? [ his point was, that his Father was not ;-].

:slight_smile: I am using Mac OS X replying your email.

Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,

+1
It is fine, OOo did it that way.

and have an optional help-pack ?

Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack.

#5

Hi,

Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack.

Most hassle-free (and Mac-like) would really be to have a single full-lang
pack with all gui and help languages. The install process would offer
possibility of languages to be installed and of online help.

But that would look nice on Windows as well (langpacks could also be
downloaded during the install, as is the case with the AbiWord setup).

Lp, m.

#6

Hmm, well, it's a massive download and not everyone have the benefit of
high speed connections, so making it smaller would be most beneficial.
Also the fact that we can have online help makes things lighter.
However, it also poses a problem for certain people.

Olav

#7

2011.02.06 19:35, Martin Srebotnjak rašė:

Hi,

Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack.

Most hassle-free (and Mac-like) would really be to have a single full-lang
pack with all gui and help languages. The install process would offer
possibility of languages to be installed and of online help.

FYI, we don't use an installer on Mac at the moment*. The whole installation process is drag-n-drop, just like that of most other applications.

However, some applications DO use install wizards on a Mac, so we probably wouldn't stand out too much if we used one too.

* To be fair, I haven't yet tried LibO on a Mac, so my statement is based on OOo 3.3. :wink:

Rimas

#8

I am providing a dmg with German on my DVD.
http://www.libreofficedvd.info7.49 usd includes shipping.

Dave Johnson

Hi,

Not a big deal if we already have all languages included in a single pack.

Most hassle-free (and Mac-like) would really be to have a single full-lang
pack with all gui and help languages. The install process would offer
possibility of languages to be installed and of online help.

But that would look nice on Windows as well (langpacks could also be
downloaded during the install, as is the case with the AbiWord setup).

Lp, m.

#9

Michael Meeks wrote:

  Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,
and have an optional help-pack ?

Yep - though I don't really like the installer concept on mac, I
guess I'd then prefer to install all those langs unconditionally. If
that turns out to cause issues, we can discuss other options.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

#10

2011.02.07 13:17, Thorsten Behrens rašė:

Michael Meeks wrote:

  Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,
and have an optional help-pack ?

Yep - though I don't really like the installer concept on mac, I
guess I'd then prefer to install all those langs unconditionally. If
that turns out to cause issues, we can discuss other options.

Well, all languages together (incl. help packs) would certainly take up a considerable amount of space.

BTW, Mac OS X has a built-in package installer, which, while doesn't support uninstallation, seems to do everything else that we may need. Here's a HOWTO about it:
http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PackageMaker_Howto.html

In the second half of this document, there's information about making a metapackage, which is basically what we would need to make installing languages optional. With screenshots! :wink:

Rimas

#11

Hi *,

Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,

+1
It is fine, OOo did it that way.

No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer.

The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you
be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to
only having to install one package?"

And to changing the installer type:
This would have major drawbacks as well.

* You have to build the installer as root/admin user
* Installing multiple versions is more difficult, as is choosing a
destination for the installation
* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory)

Drag-and-Drop installers are the preferred installation method.

But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages,
for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on
other platforms...

ciao
Christian

#12

2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

Hi *,

        Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,

+1
It is fine, OOo did it that way.

No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer.

The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you
be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to
only having to install one package?"

And to changing the installer type:
This would have major drawbacks as well.

* You have to build the installer as root/admin user

Where did you get that from? I haven't tried to build a mac package, but I see no reason why doing that would require root rights.

* Installing multiple versions is more difficult, as is choosing a
destination for the installation

Well, you can at least choose the disk partition... I agree that it's not really flexible though.

* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory)

At least the latter is not true at all, or, as you prefer to say, bullshit. You should check your facts before posting. :stuck_out_tongue:

Drag-and-Drop installers are the preferred installation method.

Correct. But it's not the only available method.

But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages,
for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on
other platforms...

Well, it's size vs. convenience. We have to balance somehow.

Rimas

#13

Hi Rimas,

2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

[...]
And to changing the installer type:
This would have major drawbacks as well.

* You have to build the installer as root/admin user

Where did you get that from? I haven't tried to build a mac package, but I
see no reason why doing that would require root rights.

Well, you might see no reason, but I did try, thus I know from own experience.
The same stupid restriction that you cannot run osacompile without
either being logged in graphically or being root. Yes, you don't see a
reason why it would require that, but it is like it is.

* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory)

At least the latter is not true at all, or, as you prefer to say, bullshit.
You should check your facts before posting. :stuck_out_tongue:

I did, believe me.

ciao
Christian

#14

Hi Christian,

(I cut out the part which I'm not planning to check out myself. Let's say I'll trust your word on it. :))

2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory)

At least the latter is not true at all, or, as you prefer to say, bullshit.
You should check your facts before posting. :stuck_out_tongue:

I did, believe me.

What about the second drop-down here: http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ?

Rimas

#15

Hi Rimas, *,

2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory)

[...]

I did, believe me.

What about the second drop-down here:
http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ?

Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while.
There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary".

So when you want LO to be installable in /Applications, you need to
chose admin authentification, but that means that the installer
*always* asks for that, no matter when the user later chooses to
install in his ~/Desktop in the later installer steps.

ciao
Christian

#16

2011.02.08 22:32, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

Hi Rimas, *,

2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a target-directory)

[...]

I did, believe me.

What about the second drop-down here:
http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ?

Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while.
There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary".

The thing is – I don't see the other options in the drop-down. But I remember reading yesterday (or maybe the day before it) that that checkbox is there to enable/disable the password prompt.

So when you want LO to be installable in /Applications, you need to
chose admin authentification, but that means that the installer
*always* asks for that, no matter when the user later chooses to
install in his ~/Desktop in the later installer steps.

I don't think copying an app from .dmg to /Applications asks for root permissions, does it?.. If it does not, then permissions shouldn't be necessary to install there too.

I can probably check it tomorrow though if my Mac at work has the packager app.

Rimas
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to read my few days old message on the other thread or to come to IRC so I can bug you about it... :slight_smile:

#17

Hi Rimas, *;

2011.02.08 22:32, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

2011.02.08 18:18, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

2011.02.08 17:46, Christian Lohmaier rašė:

* You cannot install as regular user (you always have to identify as
administrator)
(authentication is done before being able to select a
target-directory)

[...]

I did, believe me.

What about the second drop-down here:
http://s.sudre.free.fr/Stuff/PM102_4.jpg ?

Look at it for a few seconds, and think about it yourself for a while.
There is *no* choice "ask for permissions when necessary".

The thing is – I don't see the other options in the drop-down.

http://developer.apple.com/tools/installerpolicy.html

But I
remember reading yesterday (or maybe the day before it) that that checkbox
is there to enable/disable the password prompt.

Yes, but then you don't get any, even when it would require a
password/administrator privileges, and then the installation will
fail.

So when you want LO to be installable in /Applications, you need to
chose admin authentification, but that means that the installer
*always* asks for that, no matter when the user later chooses to
install in his ~/Desktop in the later installer steps.

I don't think copying an app from .dmg to /Applications asks for root
permissions, does it?.

copying an app from dmg is completely different from the installer
package we're discussing here.
And yes, it *does* ask for administrator privileges, when a non-admin
user tries to copy files into /Applications folder.
If you only got one user account, you probably don't notice, since
that user is administrator by default.

. If it does not, then permissions shouldn't be
necessary to install there too.

The permissions /are/ necessary, but you don't have to deal with them
when creating the bundle (the drag'n'drop "installer"), since it's
regular copy operation and Mac OS X takes care of it and asks for
privileges when necessary.

Such a thing is not possible with the "package installer", there the
one who builds the installer has to decide *beforehand* what
privileges the installer will ask for.
If you want the user to be able to install to /Applications, you have
to require administrator privileges. But then a user who is not
administrator, and doesn't have access to an administrator account to
fulfill that requirement cannot install at all, even if the installer
would offer a target-folder selection, since the user doesn't even get
past the authorization.

So when you want to test yourself, create a non-administrator user first.

ciao
Christian

#18

Hi Michael, *,

[...]

The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you
be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to
only having to install one package?"

So - I guess he would have said "yes", but he is perhaps an outlier;
then again - why do you think it would be more than twice the current
size ? [ clearly we would split the help packs as on windows ].

Yes, split the help-pack and then again it is not one single installer anymore.

I still regard help as a core component, and still dislike the rip-out
of the help-packages from the languagepacks.

So count at least 10MB of help for each language, and you cannot hold
your 20% increase in size.

So - I agree; if it were double the size it would be bad :slight_smile: but are
you completely opposed to a 20% growth, for much greater convenience for
the common case ?

Well, there it comes in conflict with the change of installer, I don't
think a package installer is of greater convenience for the common
user, and just installing all languages would increase the required
disk-space quite a bit. So then it is not only about size of the
installer, but also size on disk.

And to changing the installer type:

No idea about that - it sounds bad from your description :slight_smile:

yes. I initially tried to use it for the languagepacks and got
frustrated very quickly and resorted to the script that just extracts
a tarball method instead.
(even there with dirty tricks to bypass the artificial limitation of
not allowing user-interaction when creating an applescript/osascript
bundle, wrapping the same stuff in a shell-script that calls osascript
on the very same applescript works just fine)

But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages,
for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on
other platforms...

Heh - so; what I hear here is:

"if you can fix the size, we should do it"

is that fair ? if so, it sounds like an issue to fix in 3.4.

Well - if you can do it....

Having one big installer would be more favorable for BitTorrent, so
from this POV I'm in favor of getting rid of the small languagepacks
:slight_smile: (thankfully help is still included in the langaugepacks for mac)

So I don't veto it, but the size has to go down.
Splitting Mac in installer and seperate languagepack and seperate
helppack would be much, much worse, so having a huge installer is the
lesser of two evils...

ciao
Christian

#19

Hello,

just for the sake of this discussion, how big is the MSO installation for OS
X? Maybe someone can check, I am not using it.

If LO dmg will grow to 350Mb or 400Mb (with help in all languages) probably
that is still not so bad compared to the full dmg of MSO.

I understand not everyone has fast internet access and some people voice
their concern about it but is there really a difference between 150Mb and
250Mb dmg? Do/can people in countries with very slow internet access really
buy MacPros, MacBook Pros, iMacs etc.?

I mean, probably even 150Mb is too much for those using very slow internet
access, they would need an app in the range of 10-50Mb and not 200Mb.

In that case LO should do something about the hard-copy distribution of LO -
DVD's with LO should be available from local shops in those countries with
lower-band internet, I guess. This project could lead the way:
http://web.libreofficebox.org/

I just hope other languages don't get forgotten (as they got with the
Portable LibreOffice which TDF members now claim TDF has nothing to do with
it although it is hosting its files).

Lp, m.

#20

Hi Christian,

>> Would it not be better in 3.4 (when we have solved the size issues) to
>> have a single download (like Windows) that includes all the languages,

..

No, not at all, OOo did *not* include all languages into a single installer.

  So - thus far we have:

  Norbert, Thorsten and
  Nguyen Vu Hung & Martin Srebotnjak

  pro this, and you against it. So - looking at your rational:

The counter-question to that user at fosdem would have been "Would you
be OK with downloading more than twice of the current size in order to
only having to install one package?"

  So - I guess he would have said "yes", but he is perhaps an outlier;
then again - why do you think it would be more than twice the current
size ? [ clearly we would split the help packs as on windows ].

  The Mac OSX no-lang installer is currently 180Mb
  The Windows all-lang installer is currently 215Mb

  That looks like 20% larger to me - for all languages; and given the
existing 15Mb lang+help packs on Mac, the difference between
distributing l10n+help together, and bundling all l10n, while splitting
help (assuming most people don't download extra help-packs) is: 10%
[ not a like for like comparison but not a huge growth ;-].

  The good news is, that in 3.3.1 we will save another handful of
megabytes from the multi-lang install set[1] - so it is sub 20%, and by
3.4 I hope to be very similar in size to the equivalent OO.o with no
languages bundled.

  So - I agree; if it were double the size it would be bad :slight_smile: but are
you completely opposed to a 20% growth, for much greater convenience for
the common case ?

And to changing the installer type:

  No idea about that - it sounds bad from your description :slight_smile:

But those technical issues aside, I'm against bundling all languages,
for the size reasons. I don't like it on windows, and I also do so on
other platforms...

  Heh - so; what I hear here is:

  "if you can fix the size, we should do it"

  is that fair ? if so, it sounds like an issue to fix in 3.4.

  ATB,

    Michael.

[1] - unless that is consumed by new languages, lets see.