Zero3 wrote:
> Ian Clarke skrev:
>> http://www.littleshoot.org/
>>
>> While Nextgens has done great work improving the installation process,
>> clearly there is plenty of room for further improvement. I see no
>> reason why Freenet's installation process couldn't be as elegant as
>> littleshoot's.
>>
> I haven't tried out the LittleShoot installer (yet), but I also do agree
> that the installer contains unnecessary steps (I did point out a few of
> them in my review some time ago).
>
> IMHO, Freenet should be packaged for Linux distros anyway, compeletely
> eliminating the need for a Linux installer (besides whatever scripting
> the package installation requires) and terminal installation procedures.
Send a patch.
> I am aware of certain people thinking that Freenet develops too
> quickly/doesn't fit into package systems at all, but the advantages
> still seem to be much greater than the disadvantages as I see it.
>
We all agree that packaging makes sense... but they are two problems in
freenet's case:
1- the source code evolves too fast, meaning that the packages will be
unsuitable to be included in the main distro's repositories... That
means that the user *will* have to do something to his packaging system
to install freenet. On debian that would mean adding a new repository:
arguably that's not simple and it requires r00t priviledges, which isn't
the case of the current installer.
2- Lack of manpower: It's way faster/easier to maintain ONE platform
agnostic installer than N packages for N distributions.
> I do see the reasoning behind using IzPack (isn't that the name?)
> because of cross-platform support though, but assuming Linux is the
> future, and Linux apps ought to be packaged anyway, we only have Windows
> and Mac left, leaving less reason to be bound to the, perhaps less
> intuitive, IzPack installation?
>
> - Zero3
Huh. See my other emails...
Florent
