On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:08:52 +0200, Boris wrote in message
> A "short" message for Arnt !
..Winston Churchill had a great way of having bureaucrats trim
their language; it had to be readable without glasses, from across
the room, on one sheet of paper, nailed to the wall. ;-)
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:18:00 +0200, Boris wrote in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>Arnt, how about starting to actually *read* my postings - at least
> >>those that you reply to ? :-)
> > ..heh, good catch, could looong length be an issue? ;-)
> in general I'd agree, but not all messages that I post here
> are that long - so maybe we could at least agree on
> reading what we are replying to ;-)
> >>and I think Steven & Stewart are right in trying to keep things as
> >>general as possible, e.g. that way they can use that script
> >>for _many_ purposes, so it does have its justification outside
> >>the FG world.
> > ..it (tardiff) does, and it looks good, so build on it.
> I'm currently thinking about Erik's idea to use the CVS
> timestamps for comparison purpose and to tell then which
> files have changed, that way it should be possible to
> determine differences between two CVS versions without
> the need to really check out both revisions.
> That way only the stuff that got really changed would be
..act on it. ;-)
> >>IF such an extension is considered a good idea by several
> >>users here, one could think about providing externals
> >>means for it.
> > ..in this meritocraty, _only_ those ideas that are _acted_ upon,
> > prevails. ;-)
> yes, I've also come to the conclusion that this is somewhat true
> here ...ideas/suggestions only seem to be considered really as
> long as there is something "ready" ...
> >>so you are talking of an automated updater ?
> > ..define "automated".
> => to require as few user interaction as necessary for
> the updating process.
> > The idea is the user should
> > find an update script over at fg.org, and be able to
> > update to the latest official release, and at least
> > "say Yes". ;-)
> I think we agree here (see above)
> >>regarding that one really has to be careful, not
> >>everybody has a full GNU toolchain available,
> >>even though there are things like Cygwin they
> >>do significantly complicate things for novice
> >>users - or at least for those who are not really
> >>familiar with Unix.
> >>(I know that stuff like wget is also available as
> >>a standard Win32 compiled version, but it's not
> >>per default available on windows ...)
> > ..so test for it and haul it home where needed. ;-)
> what you are basically suggesting here is an
> automated install wizard tool - with the ability
> to retrieve dependencies ... people are working
> on similar projects, but they are usually pretty
> complex ...
..so simplify it. ;-)
..hint; don't wait for some fool to write some kinda
one-big-app-does-it-all, look around for scripts that does
_part's_ of what you want done, and piece those script
bits together with your own set of scripts, chk out
..the bash classics:
> >>not sure about how much sense something like that would
> >>make, we will have to wait for other opinions,
> > ..what suddenly stopped you from forming and voicing
> > your own opinions here? ;-)
> Nothing, nor do I think that there would be a peaceful way
> to achieve something like that :-)
> I was just implying that it certainly does not make sense
> to put much work into it before several people have come
> to the conclusion that it might be useful, I still doubt
> that something like that could be really simple enough
> for *everybody* ...at least of you want to keep the
> application itself AND external pre-requisites simple.
> To be honest: implementing such an application for "easy"
> updating as a *shell* script is certainly not going to
> appeal to the majority of windows users, never forget:
> only few of the regular (windows) users are really
> familiar with a shell at all, so in order not see them
> freak out, one would have to use some graphical frontend,
> tcl/tk comes to my mind ...
> Then again everybody would need to have the necessary
> runtime stuff installed :-/
> If you have a good suggestion, don't hesitate to tell
> me, cause I really think the advantage would be mainly
> significant if such a tool used (optionally) a graphical
> Hey, about integrating the necessary functionality into
> FlightGear itself, then we'll have a graphical UI :-))
..whenever pigs fly. Meanwhile, start with a set of shell scripts,
and hide them from those chicken Wintendo users who "clicks"
"Graphical Upgrade Wizard", and show real people what's
going on if they care to learn, it can run in the background,
it'll first need to drag home the deps and compile and set
them up, then FG itself.
..such a click button and blue bar will just waste a li'l bit of cpu,
and it oughtta be possible to find some GPL code to show the
junk to those chicken Wintendo users.
..search FG-devel a few months back for MS Outlook and viruses,
David M mentioned using MSOutlook as a way to install FG the same
way those virus writers install spam servers on Wintendo boxes,
effectively "mail FG, read response with MS Outlook, fly." ;-)
> > ..I'd rather see them suggest useing tgz, if the idea is get Winzip
> > working.
> okay, thanks for that suggestion - that's a good one, unix users
> shouldn't care either way and if it makes things simpler for
> windows users it should really be named that way, it's going to
> be added/changed in the next version :-)
..that was a joke, with GNU tools on a Wintendo,
you don't need Winzip. ;-)
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Flightgear-devel mailing list