On 16 mars 2004, at 16:21, David R. Morrison wrote:
Hi Martin.
How do you think we should include this with the bindist? Should we
put
your .app on the disk in place of the current .command file? How
should
the postinstall script of the bindist be set up? Should this shell
script
be include
Hi Martin.
How do you think we should include this with the bindist? Should we put
your .app on the disk in place of the current .command file? How should
the postinstall script of the bindist be set up? Should this shell script
be included with fink itself, in case someone wants to run it from
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:44:29AM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Daniel Macks wrote:
> []
> >If an admin is trying to enable fink for a new user, he'd want to run
> >this. Given that having a GUI-ish interface means you're targetting
> >folks who may not be comfortable with CLI, keeping a double-
Daniel Macks wrote:
[]
If an admin is trying to enable fink for a new user, he'd want to run
this. Given that having a GUI-ish interface means you're targetting
folks who may not be comfortable with CLI, keeping a double-clickable
thing (even if it's just an AppleScript applet or a thing.command or
On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 01:40:16AM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> I have written a new pathsetup utility "pathsetup.sh" that is meant to
> replace the "pathsetup.command" script. It does the same things as the
> old version, but it has a new interface: Following hints by Bill Scott,
> I replace
I have written a new pathsetup utility "pathsetup.sh" that is meant to
replace the "pathsetup.command" script. It does the same things as the
old version, but it has a new interface: Following hints by Bill Scott,
I replaced the Terminal.app window by AppleScript-generated dialog
windows. This
