On 02/05/13 05:44, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: >> * Put actual download links all over the site. Emphasize the download rather >> than quickstart.rst . > > I think this is already fixed by, IIRC, Peter LeBek who added a big, > pretty "Download" button to the front page and wrote > https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/Installation . (Now at the > moment the quickstart.rst is highlighted at the top of > wiki:Installation, but that's only because all of the packages on > there are still Tahoe-LAFS v1.9.2.)
Well no, because the "Run this release from source" link on that page goes to quickstart.rst. (I'd be very much opposed to making running from source a less-well-supported method of using Tahoe than installing.) >> * in the longer run, I'd like to produce single-file executables for >> non-developer users on major platforms (we might be able to get away >> with OS-X/windows/linux), then remove any confusing intrusive config >> assistance from the source tree. Basically make the source tree for >> developers who are willing to install some dependencies (maybe provide >> some pip/virtualenv support to help), have python-dev installed, have >> a C compiler, etc. > > Well, I'm +½ on supporting binary packages for users, and I'm +1 on > allowing people to be able to use Tahoe without having to deal with > setuptools weirdness, but I'm -½ on taking away people's option to use > it in the setuptools-ey way. setuptools delenda est. I think you're conflating distutils compatibility with setuptools, to be honest. -- Daira Hopwood ⚥ (formerly David-Sarah)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
