The idea is specifically about Windows. Currently, thee's an effort to create an auto-updater, which would finally re-enable the functionality in "Check for Updates" dialog, doing that in efficient way, i.e. downloading and installing some small-sized patches. While that seems reasonable, the problems implementing that seem too much. We have another problem, that there's no easy way for user to choose installer UI language different from auto-detected by msiexec (one could play with "Region and Language" -> "Format", or use command line like "msiexec /i LibreOffice_X.Y.Z_Win_x64.msi ProductLanguage=1033", but that all is outside of user's scope). So my proposal is this: could we simplify the auto-update function to simply checking if a newer applicable .MSI exists, and downloading it and launch? This would of course need to download ~300 MB MSIs instead of some smaller packages. But that would still improve things for wast majority of users who don't care much about that size downloaded; and even improve things for the rest who care (if not in download size, then in ease of update process - at least, that solution would be in no way worse than status quo). The auto-updater could take care of downloading and launching the MSI installer with UI language matching current user UI; which gives us all the code necessary for the small bootstrap application downloadable from the main site, which could do the same: search for latest applicable MSI on TDF site, download it, ask user for installation UI language, and launch MSI with that language. Having that bootstrap downloadable from main site as a download option (also requiring user to only download one small thing, and not bother with other downloads) would not exclude availability of MSI itself for those who need it to e.g. enterprise deployments using GPOs, etc.
Doing incremental updates as Markus has prototyped for Linux and Windows builds remains viable approach. This would perpetuate the status quo of monolithic packaging. But I'm not opposed as it moves the delivery UX forward. But it begs the question about stability and long term infrastructure support (how do we validate what is propagated out onto download mirrors that is then an automated install). Some other download security concerns as laid out by Kendy in the see also bug 74934 And does this end efforts for Mozilla incrementals on Windows?
Dear Mike Kaganski, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Another problem that could be related: bug 45750. I suppose that my idea basically makes it an EXE + MSI, and so we could have MSPs for languages external (the MSI would only contain en-US), and thus make the MSI conforming to the stupid 254-character language string limitation. Of course, that would limit the multilanguage installer experience to use of the EXE.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #1) > But it begs the question about stability and long term infrastructure > support (how do we validate what is propagated out onto download mirrors > that is then an automated install). Why? That is, why does using a bootstrap executable make it different w.r.t validation? You have to validate a bootstrap executable just like you have to validate a full installer. > Some other download security concerns as laid out by Kendy in the see also > bug 74934 Can you be more specific?