On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 19:22 +0200, Ulf Winkelvos wrote: > On 10.09.2010 19:07, Christoph wrote: > > On Friday, 10 September 2010, 17:40:35 Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > >> It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly > >> (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are > >> arch-specific. > > > > That describes the situation very well. Moreover, the debs contain a > > .desktop > > and a .png file, whereas the zip file does not, and the zip version looks > > for > > the configuration file in some sub-sub-subfolder, not in /etc. > > > > Christoph > > > You should consider option 4, like Philipp suggested, until then i don't > see how option 2 should be any better than option 3. > > Ulf You mean besides the fact that 'debs are evil-er than zips'?
Something about that 'data' folder is really bad =)