Re: ROTunes v0.08 now available to download

Alan Calder wrote:
In article <527eb6fa4d.druck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, druck
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




So no user intervention then - placing is determined by the software
author? Who presumably knows where things are best put on my harddisk?

Yes. Ok, longer repsonse. For a number of RISC OS components, the
author has already determined, whether by convention or RISC OS
requirements where some files might go - most notably, things in
!Boot. However, allow different locations of applications is perhaps
one important difference that a RISC OS system might have from a
traditional packaging system. Besides that, there are quite a number
of advantages to at least a default - setting up a system from
scratch, and allowing a RISC OS newbie to easily get new software.
But let's not get carried away with endless configurability.


Shorn of the 'self important bluster, forcing users to click past EULAs'
nonsense (quite agree here) seems to do much the same as the package
manager in that goes interfering 'with the users system in unpredictable
ways'.

Actually, packaging of software makes their installation extremely predictable; that's one of the benefits, since it's the same system
that always does it, and the package can be examined to see what
files ought to go where, and once installed, it can be removed,
since a record is kept of what files were installed.


Have I misunderstood something? Seems a good idea to me that there is some
uniformity on where essential modules etc go but as I user I would like the
option to place software where I want it.


I think for software you really mean "applications". Future RISC OS applications are likely to be much more dependent upon resources like
shared libraries, and perhaps support modules, and those will need to
go in one central place, and managing such files manually will be
very tedious and error-prone.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ChangeFSI on Iyonix
    ... In article, Peter Naulls ... packaging to future RISC OS application development. ... invalidate the problems I've stated with RISC OS which packaging solves. ... to knob convertor and one is available on another platform then 'fred' will ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.apps)
  • Re: Linux? Maybe next time
    ... >> parties in question give a shit about the users on that platform (the ... > applications have the more painful installation routine). ... Packaging is typically assumed to be the job ... Windows has an advantage in that all versions behave in very similar ways ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Re-updated to RISC OS 4.02
    ... same with printers+ and the Display Manager. ... installation or the installation was corrupt. ... This has nothing to do with the old!Boot-application or with RISC OS ... Adjust and replaced it by ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
    ... about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. ... write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Trying to get PackMan to install GCC
    ... how a RISC OS packaging system might be expected to work, ... while not preventing individuals setting up their own repos for their own ... installation of any one application. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.apps)