On Mon, 4 May 2020 18:41:16 -0700 (PDT), "'B. Wilson' via Metamath"
wrote:
...
Your post does *not* discuss what to do with Windows.
We need to decide how to help people install Metamath on Windows,
since that's a common platform.
We could continue to post Metamath-exe with a precompiled
On Mon, 4 May 2020 18:41:16 -0700 (PDT), "'B. Wilson' via Metamath"
wrote:
> Thank you for starting this discussion. As a package manager, I certainly
> empathsize strongly with efforts to make the current installation more
> standards-compliant. In that vein, I would recommend against
Thank you for starting this discussion. As a package manager, I certainly
empathsize strongly with efforts to make the current installation more
standards-compliant. In that vein, I would recommend against defaulting to
$HOME installations. Programs which do this are not common, play badly with
On Mon, 4 May 2020 08:32:59 -0700 (PDT), Norman Megill
wrote:
> While I'm not sure of the best way to go forward, let me explain why set.mm
> and the metamath program are currently in the same directory.
...
> Putting both into one directory allows an unsophisticated Windows user to
> click on
While I'm not sure of the best way to go forward, let me explain why set.mm
and the metamath program are currently in the same directory.
A significant number of people are completely unfamiliar with command line
interfaces on Windows and don't know how to specify directory paths. Even
worse,
