> Sorry if I'm late to the party with this suggestion. I'd rather late than never. I don't want to break this if people are unhappy with what I've come up with.
> but I think this > is where using zero install[0] for extensions would shine: > > - feeds that contain only JS (i.e no compilation required) are > trivial to create. > - built-in GPG signing of feeds > - version requirements are supported for dependencies (before, not-before) > - you can depend on other extensions, or on arbitrary packages. These > can be other (vanilla) zero install feeds, or they can be feeds that > are a wrapper for a system package > - system packages can have multiple names for a given zero install > feed. This will allow you to depend on fooBar for fedora, but > libfoo-bar on debian > - 0install uses packagekit to resolve & install system packages, so > the experience should be fairly straightforward for users > - doesn't require root access (unless system packages need > installing, obviously) I'm confused at what you want -- do you want 0install to be used for extension packages themselves, or for their dependencies? If you mean the former, I'll look at 0install if it does what I need.... and here's what I need. * Users need to be able to click one button, and like magic the extension instantly is downloaded, unzipped, loaded and enabled. This is working correctly. * Users need to be able to click the same button in the web UI, and the extension is disabled. This is, again, working correctly. * I need to be able to inspect the state of the extension so I can enable the correct buttons. Right now this is done with the HTTP server. * We need to be able to make this seamless for a simple extension case (no dependencies). I will not allow the word "0install" on a dialog when installing, enabling or disabling an extension. I'm editing the screencast that shows what I have worked out right now. Jason Clinton: what do you usually use for video editing, so I can stop cursing PiTiVi? > [0]: http://0install.net/ > > I'm working up to releasing an extension that requires my own mutter > fork (for now, I hope that won't always be the case), and 0install is > the only way I can sanely do so. It allows my extension to > - have dependencies > - not mess with the system version of mutter > - work cross-platform (not a big deal when fedora is the only distro > with GS, but will become more important later). How does 0install make the mutter case better? > I'd love 0install to be used for gnome-shell extensions, and I'm happy > to help out with whatever I can to make that happen. _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
