On 10/09/12 10:29, Sébastien Doeraene wrote: > However, it is probably interesting to have, say for package repositories, > two distinct > packages: one called the runtime-one and the other called the developer-one. > The only > thing that would be excluded from the first one is probably just the entry > for the OPI in > the system menu bar ^^, but it could have a "psychological" impact: people > that need to > install an application written in Oz do not want to install something that > looks like > developer-oriented. So they want to install a package that has somehow the > word "runtime" > in it... although the developer package is only a few KB heavier.
Actually it's slightly irritating, as a developer, that end-user machines often
don't
have 'dev' packages installed for a given library or language. It means that
when an
end-user encounters a problem that requires one of the dev tools to debug,
there is an
extra step [*] to tell them to install that before they can follow your
debugging
instructions.
Just call the package "libmozart" and it will be fine.
[*] Actually three extra steps: tell them to use something that is only in the
dev package; they tell you it doesn't work; get them to install dev package;
then resume. (If it was a system-installed package and they are not an admin
on the machine they're using, it would be even more steps.)
--
David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_________________________________________________________________________________ mozart-hackers mailing list mozart-hackers@mozart-oz.org http://www.mozart-oz.org/mailman/listinfo/mozart-hackers
