Issue 72921 - distribute installation package as .tar.gz
Summary: distribute installation package as .tar.gz
Alias: None
Product: Installation
Classification: Application
Component: www (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.2
Hardware: All Linux, all
: P2 Trivial with 17 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact: caiot1
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-12-24 18:52 UTC by towsonu2003
Modified: 2017-05-20 10:55 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description towsonu2003 2006-12-24 18:52:57 UTC
At bug # 44102, is told us that with dmake openoffice_en-US PKGFORMAT=archive,
OOo will now create an archive that can be installed by:
2. tar xvzf openoffice.tar.gz
3. cd openoffice
4. ./soffice

Currently, debian users and users of non-rpm-based distros have to struggle with
rpm packages.

Please distributed the installation in the .tar.gz archive format. RPMs are
useless to many users. tar.gz will work for all Linux users.
Comment 1 towsonu2003 2006-12-24 19:17:24 UTC
I sent an email to (second time, with correct email
address). Hopefully, it should appear in their archive at

Mail was sent at 2006-12-24 / Dec 2006. 
Comment 2 garyemiller 2006-12-24 21:13:00 UTC
*** Issue 72921 has been confirmed by votes. ***
Comment 3 Martin Hollmichel 2006-12-25 08:57:23 UTC
take this one. 

plan: look for possiblilty to provide those archive with the next snapshots.
Comment 4 Martin Hollmichel 2006-12-25 08:57:50 UTC
Comment 5 bobharvey 2006-12-26 00:46:15 UTC
I refer the developers to my comments in 44102.
The ordinary user of 1.x could use a universal installer in any variant of
linux.  The ordinary user of 2.x had to struggle with .rpm files instead.  44102
was allegedly "fixed" by adding facilities to the build method which were of no
use at all to ordinary users trying to download from the web site, as none of
the extra facilities mentioned in the alleged "fix" of 44102 made it to the
downloadable versions.  Only the .rpms continued to be offered in .tar.gz form

I stand by the idea of re-instating something like the universal installer for
ordinary users of Linux.  Read most of 44102 to see why.

[1] Perhaps the title of this issue should be "give users back the universal
Comment 6 renatoyamane 2007-01-03 22:44:11 UTC
I think that Sun is trying to impose RPM as standard (because [Open]SuSE use RPM
too), but tar.gz is better because any distro can use this format.

I use OpenSuSE, but only RPM/DEB is useless and tar.gz is more compatible.
Comment 7 caiot1 2007-01-03 23:12:08 UTC
As discussed in the releases@ooo list, this is a wont-fix.
Someone might to set up a mirror and provide it, but the OOo mirrors won't have
the tar.gz uploaded. That would mean deleting a lot of "older but still
supported" versions and it would make it hard to add new languages.

See cloph comments on also.
Comment 8 caiot1 2007-01-03 23:15:42 UTC
Closing issue.

Well, the users could, in a non-official way, provide the tar.gz files through
Comment 9 renatoyamane 2007-01-04 00:06:53 UTC
Asrail, why you close this issue?
Workarrounds (as comment by cloph in 44102 issue) can't close this issue!
Non-Official way (as torrent) can't close this issue!
Comment 10 towsonu2003 2007-01-04 00:15:24 UTC
next time, if you're not willing to fix an issue, don't stall your users by
telling them to open new bug reports. don't waste my time for defects you're not
willing to / cannot fix. 
Comment 11 caiot1 2007-01-04 00:43:41 UTC
wontfix does not means it was resolved, means we don't have enough resources to
resolve it now.
Sun has nothing with [Open]SuSE, by the way.
RPM is defined as the package format for the "linux standard base":
LSB is not mandatory, but it's interesting in case of conflicts, like this.

you've participated of the discussions. No one had declared that one finished,
but we don't have new mail there for two days and no advocate mail for 6 days.
You or someone else could (can) give a strong argument for this.

You can still voting, as the issue could be reopened.
Comment 12 towsonu2003 2007-01-04 02:01:52 UTC
>you've participated of the discussions. No one had declared that one finished,
>but we don't have new mail there for two days and no advocate mail for 6 days.
>You or someone else could (can) give a strong argument for this.

all arguments were provided at bug # 44102

in the meantime, releases@ooo should have discussed this in the bug report so
the users could keep an eye on the discussion. 
Comment 13 bobharvey 2007-01-05 08:25:40 UTC
I feel that the attitude over this issue has, from the start, been high handed 
and arrogant.

I /like/ OOo very much, and admire the availability of the issuezilla system.  
In general it works well.  But it is not an efficient method of establishing 2-
way communications on non-techincal decisions.

I have seen nothing that justifies the original change to .rpm packaging.  
There were no issues saying "the universal installer in 1.1 does not work" nor 
user clamour for change.  If you combine the various reactions in the various 
issuezilla issues with the feelings on the site there is a lot of 
difficulty with the .rpm solution, and a lot of unhappiness among the people 
who matter most to the project, the ordinary users.

Now "wontfix" is at least a decision, which is better than some of the infinite 
dangling that goes on with other matters.  But I don't consider it a sensible 
one until a detailed, argued, case has been plainly put in public - perhaps on 
the download page for linux - explaining why the software cannot be released in 
the universal manner that 1.1 was, or ready-to-run binary like firefox.

Maybe it is OOo's policy that linux distos should have thier own pacakage 
format in thier own online repository, because that will serve the users 
better.  If so, please say so politely and with conviction and in public.  
Maybe there are testing resource limitiations that the universal installer 
identified.  So let us know, informatively and in detail.  The original issue 
had over 50 votes.  This one has 14 already.  It obviously matters to people.

I remain astonished that in 44102 we were told that the work had been done to 
support varied distribution methods, and here we are being told that work will 
not be capitalised upon!
Comment 14 caiot1 2007-01-05 17:51:26 UTC
Issue Tracker is not an efficient way of establishing communication on
non-technical decisions and was not intended to it and for each issue we have to
have a different report.

The universal installer was dropped because it was hard to maintain. We hadn't
people to still developing it and to test on different platforms.

It's too hard to understand we're lacking resources?
The project have to maintain old releases in the servers, because some users
have to use an older release for some reason (a bug in newer releases that
doesn't allow them to open a document, for instance).
We already are dropping the releases too early, because we're providing new
major versions quickly.

All of you have to understand the comments on the issues aren't read by almost
The issue exists to tell there is a problem, you can cite it, etc.

You may want to check the "discuss" list if you wanna a discussion with a great

There are more people in the "releases" list than here listening to this thread
and were told to discuss it there, everyone were able to join.
It already has been discussed there, so it would be better use the "discuss"
list first, mentioning this issue.

Another thing: as already said a lot of times, a tar.gz can be created from the
RPM files, you can see it in the comments of bug 44102.

Supporting a new package officially also means a lot more of efforts to test it
and assure it works, as the packaging may include some bugs.

About the universal installer, as the project is made up from volunteers, we
don't have anyone interested in making one right now. We have a lot of important
issues to resolve.

I'm reopening this one for the complaints.

Comment 15 Martin Hollmichel 2008-05-15 10:29:10 UTC
set target 3.0
Comment 16 higuita 2008-06-25 04:20:39 UTC
1º- yes, rpm is the LSB package, but that doesnt mean that everyone agree with
it. A rpm can also be made from a tar.gz package, but as convert from rpm to
tar.gz, convert tar.gz to rpm is a pain...
2º- tar.gz everyone can use it, tar and gzip are included in all distros, rpm
might not be and even worst, rpm converters arent for sure installed by default
in any distro.
3º- you now have a .deb package, so there are resources for it, but not for a
single tar.gz?

i would suggest that OOo build a tar.gz (or tar.bz2) ONLY for the latest
version, it would help 99% of the users that want tar.gz and for those that need
older versions, they can fallback to the rpm conversion.

i can even offer myself to build the tar.gz (upon test, if enough smaller, i
would prefer tar.bz2) if OOo would agree in distributing then just like the .rpm
and the .dev
Comment 17 Martin Hollmichel 2009-08-13 12:33:50 UTC
problem actually is the distribution of the tarballs, might be possible if we
drop the version not including the jre.
Comment 18 higuita 2009-08-13 22:59:01 UTC
i actually vote the opposite... drop the version WITH the JRE... most distros
already have java included or have packaged available. For those without, can
download the JRE from the site. Also, most users will not even need the
features that require the java.

just having the OOo with Jre is a (little) waste of space/bandwidth, specially
for those with slow net connections and/or traffic limits
Comment 19 rgb 2009-08-13 23:59:33 UTC
I agree with higuita: the java version bundled in OOo is almost useless on any
modern Linux distro. If you need space, drop the version with java.
Comment 20 renatoyamane 2009-08-14 01:12:22 UTC
I don´t waste my time on this issue anymore!

We are talking about this since Bug #44102 (from 2005)!
FOUR years is enough!

This is the true:
"Hey, we like just RPM, and go to the hell if you need a tarball!"

This is bullshit:
- "We don´t have resource enough to do this"
- "We don´t have space enough on our servers/mirrors to add a new package"
- "We don´t have time enough to test all instalation sets"
Comment 21 Marcus 2017-05-20 10:55:22 UTC
Reset assigne to the default "".