Everyone who has set out to create a simple installer so far ended up with a complicated one. Why do you believe you can do it better than all the major Linux distributors, who have invested a lot of effort into simple installers for sure, considering they are usually judged *primarily* by the simplicity of their installers?
One could say the same about our package manager. But the goals are so different that it isn't worth while to take a existing package manager, and tweak it into something we like. Maybe this is the case with the installer, I do not know, but I trust that Michael will make the right decision; it seems that having several thousand of files (is it _really_ 34k files?) for something as an installer is quite frightening... Emacs is is something like 2000 files; and that is with the byte-compiled elisp files... Cheers. _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
