On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:32, [email protected] said: > If your objection to MSI is on purely libre grounds, this may change > things. If your objection is that it's an awful packaging standard, well...
Neither of them. MSI is a very good packaging system but to make good use of it you need to use it in a fine-grained manner and not just with huge packages. For example the current 2.1.x installer would need to be split up in maybe a dozen separate MSI files much like it is done in Linux distributions. The main work will then be to maintain the dependencies. We can easily do that for most parts of GnuPG but there are external packages which should be shared with other applications (think: zlib) and this raises the question who will be responsible for this. Windows\Debian, or Windows\Fedora, or Windows\Gentoo, etc .... Without that we won't have a package management system but several of them and don't get rid of all the ugly hacks and annoyances. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
