On 12/10/05, Jens Geile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Adding_Extensions_using_the_Windows_Registry > > > I read that page and i must say: "What the fuck are those idiots doing?" > > > The documentation is totally useless and either i'm too stupid to follow > > > the incomplete instructions or this just doesn't work. > > > Either way i can't get it to work no matter what i try. > > The instructions there are pretty good and complete i would say. Just try > > to read them from the beginning and then continue up to the very end while > > following them. > As if i haven't done that already ... Maybe you could enlighten me? Best way > would be a working example of how the registry entry should look like ...
I am not going to quote the referred webpage again. It works. 1. Unpack the extension 2. Copy it to client 3. Put the path into the registry _just as stated in the referred document_ If i wanted to enlighten you, i would have to copy the page here, just try to read it. http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Adding_Extensions_using_the_Windows_Registry it is not even that long - it shouldnt take you more than an afternoon to get through it. > > How would this make things easier? Your only gain is by getting rid of some > > <package> beginning and end tags at the same time introducing aditional > > check and install id tags. This only complicates matters and makes > > packages.xml editing more prone for errors. > The Firefox Extensions are just an example. Just think about Windows or MS > Office Updates. You DON'T want to have a package entry for every single > entry. Each time a new update comes out you'd have to add it to packages.xml > and then edit profiles.xml too. With multiple checks/installs per package > you'd only have to edit packages.xml. And if you have a webinterface to edit > it the chance to mess it up doesnt increase at all too. It makes things more difficult by introducing double logic: right now we have package <> check(s) setup by your suggestion we would have multiple packages <> multiple checks relationships. That would complicate things on the wpkg.js script side much much more than it simplifies package management. Tha gain as i showed will be in a COUPLE OF BYTES for the whole packages.xml, but it would make things much much more complicated programmatically. Anyway, i beleive, you can make up the patch if you insist on this feature and Tomasz might include it... No need to get all that excited. cheers, Kristofer ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wpkg-users
