Currently OOo uses a series of RPM's (for the record, I don't have a problem
with that).  Many users complain about the multiple core RPM's as they have
interlinked dependencies.  As all core RPM's are needed, I've searched for a
reason why there are multiple core RPM's rather than just one.  The only reason
I found is this:

"The reason for the separation is to allow for patch-packages. You can only
update complete packages. If everything would be in one single package, you
would have to download the whole thing, whereas with the split-up packages, it
is enough if you download only the updated package."
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52791

Three problems with this:
1. We have done 5 releases of 2.0.x and not a single one has taken advantage of
this.
2. This is not the best way of patching.  Delta RPM will make a better job of it
and work has already been done on this by Guido Ostkamp:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=62893
3. The dependencies of that situation are difficult.

What I am suggesting is that the core RPM's are united into a single core RPM,
components will remain separate.  The advantages are:
1. Marginally smaller download size due to less individual files
2. Point and click RPM installation will be possible as currently the
interlinking dependencies prevent this.  This may reduce the number of
complaints about the RPM installation.

All of the Linux distros I've used have packaged OOo with a single core RPM so
there is obviously nothing holding it back but the Cun policy.  Can't SO and OOo
be released with slightly different packaging?  They're not interchangeable
packages so no need for them to be identical.

I can also see it as making an incremental update through the online update tool
an easier thing to do as it requires less files.

The only possible disadvantage is that the current ability to upgrade a single
small RPM won't be there.  Then again, this has never been used.  If not, why
have multiple RPM's?