From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Jostein=20Kj=C3=B8nigsen?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: windows installer Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:46:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1511167607.4167724.1178177216.0DCA23E2@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <795606216.288650.1510476987589@mail.libero.it> <83po8nn38p.fsf@gnu.org> <8760adbxw6.fsf@russet.org.uk> <1369184752.491791.1510670215753@mail.libero.it> <1447748875.458066.1510690344828@mail.libero.it> Reply-To: jostein@kjonigsen.net NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_151116760741677245" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1511167682 10159 195.159.176.226 (20 Nov 2017 08:48:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 08:48:02 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Phillip Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 20 09:47:57 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eGhkA-0001zz-Eh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:47:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56065 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGhkE-0003UE-MF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:47:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48392) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGhjE-0003O8-2u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:46:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGhj7-0007iw-Sn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:46:56 -0500 Original-Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:60629) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eGhj7-0007hf-Jh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:46:49 -0500 Original-Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4B120808; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:46:47 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:46:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= secure.kjonigsen.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=DgwFrcE6+3rGT/ONMnQoNiHUp6CslFni4SU7uIZyXLs=; b=RyU4XIH4+ZH2 rvkVptV8ZPLTN9xJFLFGBVZyqYB5Tpp3NiJD7bO9H9o/Yn/kQonvaE0YAlGZeNAJ 8O4QqLM/uGDCZvChxr+Uz5INJT01qme3GYUFwMwWD4/Fz+ZVX4Jp8W7P57gfUfDy SXdmrSfELqPKgAbecbzwYd+MHErcURS3gqRjzLcrn/8+09gs76UbLkiYXJFjG42A 82GKyrUsEOfnPMnoBKXEoqjb3RnzQaCMI3WjyYx9L1ekxb02e+Vn3hdXBQIg5LDo HRTXgM5SckWbc6vtlu8OKS4GPy9+lWVHH26udXnuYvD4gZnprvJZ5/d4wDZue8kD 8wxFVnJDuw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=DgwFrcE6+3rGT/ONMnQoNiHUp6CslFni4SU7uIZyXLs=; b=noT1KydOjCG6 jkUbWtPHXLRLzm0RqnYEVEnhoqZoS+lfHQKD9HH44vS4wmX7ECWHjgk97ov5WYcI 14+MgOftfUvDOkAFywgP3c5g1W1vo9kki/lfBBF+VAR4sQZWl2VkvLYaaXQ4Qgrk Ax4KvSAE0JZ07UnvetB2RpvPOET1mbxkjpdm4+GiVZRihOuiIGTZ3kMB5v8EaeTf 92NIcCucPOzquDO6WFeenqS2uKKB+KeaujokuEOiTlfthAFr9XKGjqkslfcQL4fr gPMSu4gQvFGemPkZ8Hy3z1yyrnmLpzYfr9dn/nRARiZo6fe6Rg+Hu4/V/Ie+oLah PKuhXgHwqg== X-ME-Sender: Original-Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 8A5979E2A4; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:46:47 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-a169161c In-Reply-To: <1447748875.458066.1510690344828@mail.libero.it> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 66.111.4.28 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220283 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_151116760741677245 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Let's pause and take a look at the high level overview of what we have here: * A working "normal" Windows installer, which has issues which still needs to be resolved. There may even be some GNU-level initiatives which must be committed to and finalized (code-signing certificates, etc). * Discussion about a "portable" installer, and what people want that to be and do. The portable installer will also need all these fixes which the regular installer needs before it can be useful. Right now I can see there's quite a lot of bike-shedding about just what a portable installer **is**, and what it should **do**. My impression was that there's a *standard definition, *established *conventions* and that this really *not *being a matter open for debate? But I may be wrong and as such I guess *some** *discussion is good. Right now though there's so much discussion about the portable installer to the point that I can't find any other discussion about the main installer at all. And considering how the portable installer most likely is going to be used by a minority of Windows-users, and that it directly depends on the work on the main Windows-installer to be deliverable at all... To me that seems very much like the wrong way to go about things. So could we all please focus on getting the main, normal Windows- installer landed before detouring into how we want the portable installer to differ and how to best achieve that? (And once again: Stellar work Phillip! Really appreciated!) -- Vennlig hilsen Jostein Kj=C3=B8nigsen jostein@kjonigsen.net =F0=9F=8D=B5 jostein@gmail.com https://jostein.kjonigsen.net On Tue, Nov 14, 2017, at 09:12 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote: >=20 >> Il 14 novembre 2017 alle 17.31 Fabrice Popineau >> ha scritto:>>=20 >>=20 >> 2017-11-14 15:36 GMT+01:00 Angelo Graziosi : >>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Fabrice Popineau ha scritto: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> The best portable program is the one you can install with unzip. >>>> And it>>> is already the case for Emacs. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> No. After you have unzipped and started Emacs, where do you think >>> it will>>> write the .emacs.d folder? >>>=20 >>=20 >> And why do you care about .emacs.d that much ? >> You can setup emacs using the site-lisp directory if you don't >> want to>> write to your host in ~/.emacs.d. >>=20 >>=20 >>> You are using "portable" with a meaning a bit different from the >>> one which>>> is discussed here... It should not write the host machine. >>>=20 >>>=20 >> I don't think so. I have already been there in the past and for >> longer you>> seem to imagine. >> My point is that you can configure everything from within emacs >> without>> requiring an external installer >> to fiddle with your host. >=20 > ..but not all [potential] users want to do that... >=20 --_----------=_151116760741677245 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Let's pause and take a look at the high level overview of what w= e have here:

  • A working "normal" Windows installer, which has issues which still = needs to be resolved.
    There may even be some GNU-level initiatives which= must be committed to and finalized (code-signing certificates, etc).
  • Discussion about a "portable" installer, and what people want th= at to be and do.
    The portable installer will also need all these fixes w= hich the regular installer needs before it can be useful.

Right now I can see there's quite a lot of bike-shedding about just wh= at a portable installer *is*, and what it should *do*. My imp= ression was that there's a standard definition, established conve= ntions and that this really not being a matter open for debate? = But I may be wrong and  as such I guess some discussion = is good.

Right now though there's so much discussion about the portable install= er to the point that I can't find any other discussion about the main insta= ller at all.

And considering how the portable installer most likely is going to be = used by a minority of Windows-users, and that it directly depends on the wo= rk on the main Windows-installer to be deliverable at all... To me that see= ms very much like the wrong way to go about things.

So could we all please focus on getting the main, normal Windows-insta= ller landed before detouring into how we want the portable installer to dif= fer and how to best achieve that?

(And once again: Stellar work Phillip! Really appreciated!)

--
Vennli= g hilsen
Jostein Kj=C3=B8nigsen

jostein@k= jonigsen.net =F0=9F=8D=B5 jostein@= gmail.com
https://= jostein.kjonigsen.net


On Tue, Nov 14, 2017, at 09:12 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:

Il 14 novembre 2017 alle 17.31 Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com> = ha scritto:


2017-11-14 15:36 GMT+01:00 Angelo Graziosi <angelo.g0@libero.it>:


Fabrice Popineau ha scritto:


The best portable program is the one you can install with unzip. And i= t
is already the case for Emacs.


No. After you have unzipped and started Emacs, where do you think it w= ill
write the .emacs.d folder?


And why do you care about .emacs.d that much ?
You can setup emacs using the site-lisp directory if you don't want to=
write to your host in ~/.emacs.d.


You are using "portable" with a meaning a bit different fr= om the one which
is discussed here... It should not write the host machine.


I don't think so.  I have already been there in the = past and for longer you
seem to imagine.
My point is that you can configure everything from within emacs withou= t
requiring an external installer
to fiddle with your host.

..but not all [potential] users want to do that...


--_----------=_151116760741677245--