scp2 - modules (and fdo#60924)
dtardon at redhat.com
Wed Jun 12 00:03:28 PDT 2013
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:34:38PM +0200, Matúš Kukan wrote:
> Anyone knows what should be the result of processing scp2 files?
> Few $(OUTDIR)/bin/*.ins files but I mean the solenv/bin/modules/ thing.
> We could install (copy) files directly with gbuild, so what would be
> missing after removing scp2 ?
My vision (for Linux) is that everything is in $(INSTDIR) and packaging
is handled by native means: a spec file for rpm and a control file for
deb. It would mean duplication in filelists, dependencies etc., but at
least it would all be done at _one_ place (not two or more as today) and
in formats that _someone_ understands. I suppose the MacOS X dmg could
be produced in similar way--IIRC the only postprocessing done by the
installer is signing of the product.
Windows need a lot of postprocessing to create the msi, so a substatial
subset of solenv/bin/modules/installer would still be needed for it,
even if we create/use a new description format that is simpler than
scp2. (Note that there is much more in scp2 for windows than for the
other platforms: creation of shortcuts, registry items, and more. There
is also the matter of translation of module descriptions.)
> Especially I don't understand the chaos in various modules (gid_Module_Foos)
> - do we need them also for Windows? e.g. scp2/source/activex/module_activex.scp
Yes, we do. They are used to create the module tree in the installer,
where you can choose which parts should be installed and which should
More information about the LibreOffice