M. Fioretti said: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 17:44:10 PM -0400, William Hooper > (whooperhsd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> >> Robin Laing said: >> >> > If I am setting up a workstation for a secretary and I don't want to >> > allow Internet browsing, why should I install Mozilla. If the address >> > book code is required for OOo, then put the code in a separate >> > package. I can understand the dependencies for libs but not for >> > applications. How is the OOo download from OpenOffice.org handle >> this? >> >> Well, you install Mozilla so you can use the library... > > Did you miss the beginning of the thread? This is exactly what one > would want to avoid. So I guess in this case what one wants to avoid and what OOo does are two different things. >> If you were doing a customized build (as opposed to the general >> build that FC needs), you could remove the address book sections >> that require it. > > Not possible for the end user, which again is the subject of the > original complaint: IIRC wasn't the scenario "building a machine for a end user that doesn't need a browser"? > 1) No competencies > 2) If he had the disk space and CPU power to *compile* OOo (read > around what a light task that is) he would do much faster > installing Mozilla... I would hope that said end user's machine isn't the only machine available, especially if having Mozilla installed is such an issue. FC is designed to be a general purpose OS. Having a web browser installed on a general purpose OS isn't that big of a stretch. We can go back and forth all day about what is "right or wrong", but I doubt it will go anywhere. Others have already posted just about all the factual info there is: 1) The dependency could also be meet with a lighter-weight browser (Firefox or whatever it is named this week) 2) The dependency could be split off into another package - this needs taken upstream. I would guess that if OOo is the only major program using this lib than creating a separate RPM won't be high on the priority list. -- William Hooper
