> a) You'd be rewriting what already exists, for what benefit?
Raise the bar in the state of art of Linux installation.
That's certainly a worthy goal, but I'd like to think we already did -
easy to use one click installs are something we put a lot of effort
into. If you haven't watched the F
Hello,
> > For those programs that do not require native libraries, we could
> > probably generate a Mono-based installer that can use console or
> > Windows.Forms based installations.
>
> Well, I can see why this would be tempting for you but my advice is don't:
>
> a) You'd be rewriting what a
We already have a "for all distros" installer (that uses bitrock). But
it'd be really cool to see this use autopackage.
Yes, I saw. Bitrock is a good product. My main aim here is to get Mono
applications themselves using graphical installers - if the Mono runtime
itself is also autopackaged an
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
For those programs that do not require native libraries, we could
probably generate a Mono-based installer that can use console or
Windows.Forms based installations.
Well, I can see why this would be tempting for you but my advice is don't:
a) You'd be rewriting what alr
Hello,
> They look every bit as professional and clean as a commercial MacOS
> software site, but when you click the "Download $COOL_APP" link you get
> a tarball!
For those programs that do not require native libraries, we could
probably generate a Mono-based installer that can use console or
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 15:22 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> * Autopackage supports dependency resolution. Some users on some distros
>don't have any easily accessible packages for the Mono runtime, or if
>they do they may not know where to get them. By packaging not only
>applications but
Hi,
One thing that pains me about desktop Linux is when I see very nice
products and websites like this:
http://more-cowbell.org/
or
http://beatniksoftware.com/tomboy/index.html
or
http://sonance.aaronbock.net/
They look every bit as professional and clean as a commercial MacOS
