On Sunday 13 Nov 2005 15:20, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 20:43 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: > > Incidentally, autopackage should > > probably warn you that it's installing potentially huge amounts of > > stuff in a dotfile > > Yes, possibly so. We install to ~/.local partly for compatibility: we > didn't choose that directory ourselves.
I don't argue with the choice of ~/.local. It's not ideal, but most of the other options are no better. It's just that I think there may be some subsequent nasty surprises. (It's a bit like those compiler caches that will happily eat up your entire disk in a hidden directory. We've had some heated discussions about that in the Rosegarden lists, after someone enabled cacheing by default in our scons configuration.) > [...] I suspect [libpng] came from Lilypond, this > package is *very* unusual in that the developers feel any failed > dependency at all is bad Does that mean that most packagers feel that some failed dependencies are OK? Does autopackage normally warn and exit if a vital library not bundled is not found? > so they ship basically the entire OS except > for the kernel and libc in their package. Kind of ironic that it still didn't actually run, then. > [blitzing K menu] > The only suspicious thing I saw is that in some cases we run the > Debian update-menus tool. Maybe update-menus is responsible somehow > for what you see? Yep, just tried running that and it did the same thing. This tells us that (despite using and distributing a Debian-based system) I have never in my life run update-menus as anything other than root, and if I did, I'd be damn sure not to run it again. I would guess that if ~/.config/menus/[something other than debian-*] exists, it's probably a bad idea to run update-menus. I'd much rather not have my new package on the K menu than have everything else go missing. Best thing, presumably, in that case would be to ask the user where in the existing menu, neatly parsed out from the existing .menu file, they would like to put it. But having seen how gross the .menu document structure can be, I guess it may not be worth the pain. > * There is something special about Ghostscript and Lilypond. Yeah, that's a bit of an unfair example because I actually knew what the special requirement was beforehand, and I knew that I didn't want to be bothered about it at this stage because I could always sort it out later. (In the case of Lilypond it was easier for me to build it from source than to fiddle about trying to work out what went wrong with the Autopackage file -- which again is not a normal-user situation.) > [...] the new support in 1.2 can transparently fix it for > every C++ app. How? Chris ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
