Issue 46333 - Native Linux install package using autopackage
Summary: Native Linux install package using autopackage
Alias: None
Product: Installation
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: All Linux, all
: P3 Trivial with 55 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Depends on:
Reported: 2005-03-30 22:44 UTC by arthit
Modified: 2015-08-15 09:52 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: FEATURE
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description arthit 2005-03-30 22:44:30 UTC
The latest version of OOo now (OOo 2.0 Beta) provides a native install package
for Windows platform (using .msi file).

For Linux, OOo officialy provided a RPM package.

This issue proposes OOo to have a Linux install package which using an
Autopackage framework.

Autopackage's direct target is end-user. It provides easy-to-use GUI installer
and uninstaller (in the same fashion as Windows's "Add/Remove Program"). It also
resolve dependencies automatically, download required softwares/libraries from
the net and install them on the fly. I believe that Autopackage will give a
better experience for users.

Major Linux applications that now successfully use Autopackage are including
Gaim, Inkscape and AbiWord.

Autopackage FAQ
Comment 1 arthit 2005-03-30 22:47:28 UTC
 Projects using Autopackage
Comment 2 arthit 2005-03-30 22:52:13 UTC
for a quick view,
Autopackage review at (2 pages)
Comment 3 Olaf Felka 2005-03-31 06:11:07 UTC
Comment 4 paradox 2005-03-31 06:13:31 UTC
I signed up just to vote for this issue, an autopackage for openoffice would be
a great idea.  I've been tracking the windows OOo testing builds for quite some
time now, simply because they are easy to install.  If I knew that there was an
autopackage of OOo avaliable, I would have downloaded and tested it.  I've used
autopackage before to install inkscape, and eveything seemed to work really well.
Comment 5 dave2 2005-03-31 11:05:07 UTC
To echo the general concensus of people who commented on the bug, I feel that a
.package would be a good idea; I know that the huge mass of setup files with two
executables in 1.x is daunting, and the RPMs with 2.0 have the "Will this work
on my distro" feeling that you get when installing RPMs which aren't built with
your system in mind. I also know that the autopackage people would be willing to
help with making a specfile, so it wouldn't be a completely unsupported project.
Comment 6 arthit 2005-03-31 11:11:51 UTC
A demo of a typical install session of an autopackage (use Flash)
Comment 7 konttori 2005-03-31 14:18:09 UTC
This would also serve as a great flag bearer for autopackage!
Comment 8 rykel 2005-05-25 09:57:22 UTC
Hi there, if it is not too troublesome, please help us release in
the autopackage format. Thank you!
Comment 9 sajer 2005-06-17 22:10:14 UTC
Please make an autopackage available - on Ubuntu I had to convert these packages
using Alien. Linux (and OOo for Linux) will get nowhere if you got to be a nerd
and use the terminal to install software.

Supporting a project like is vital for Linux.
Comment 10 zephyrxero 2005-10-06 17:54:51 UTC
I would have very much liked to beta test for OO2 on Linux too, but due to the
current way my distro, and just about every other one out there works...there
was no way for me to install it except compiling it from source. An autopackage
would have fixed that very nicely. I use autopackages whenever I can to promote
cross-distro installation instead of distro/repository lock in. Gaim and
Inkscape work flawlessly on both my Ubuntu and Gentoo machines ;) Can't wait to
get a hold of OO2!
Comment 11 sgipan 2005-12-08 01:39:38 UTC
autopackage is the one tool that will make Linux shine on the desktop. That's 
a goal we have in common. 
autopackage levels one of the last advantages Windows presently has over Linux 
(that almost all apps work on almost all OS versions).  
Just imagine just preparing one autopackage and that's it. No more users 
having to wait until OOo comes out as an rpm for their trusty old SuSE 8.0 
etc. or until it's added to their standard repository. It really can be this 
easy! Thx! 
Comment 12 zero0w 2006-03-27 09:33:24 UTC
I have created a new section in the Wiki called "Autopackage
distribution". From what I gathered in the OOo2 package dependency metadata
stored in the RPM / DEB  packages, it won't be an easy undertaking. 

However, I agree the benefit will eventually outweigh the hardwork. So please
contribute thru the Wiki and provide any information which can help achieving
the goal of providing OOo in autopackage format:
Comment 13 bobharvey 2006-07-04 08:24:59 UTC
I have voted for this, although I was perfectly happy with the old installer 
and have voted for 44102 as well.

What I am not happy with is the decision to ship multiple separate rpms.  RPMs 
are not universally accepted - Ubuntu, for example, does not use them.  

The old installer worked perfectly well on every Linux varient I tried it on.  
I have no doubt that autopackage would be perfectly good too.  Frankly, using 
either would be better than what we have now.

I would warn the autopackage enthusiasts that there are sound technical reasons 
to be concerned about it, mainly involving library version proliferation.  But 
the package itself, properly used, deals with that.
Comment 14 damjan 2015-08-15 09:11:02 UTC
Autopackage died out years ago. Is there an alternative nowdays?
Comment 15 jhasse 2015-08-15 09:52:30 UTC