Re: windows installer

["Jostein Kjønigsen" <jostein@secure.kjonigsen.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2862 bytes --]

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 Kjønigsen

jostein@kjonigsen.net 🍵 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 it>>> is already the case for Emacs.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No. After you have unzipped and started Emacs, where do you think
>>> it will>>> 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 from 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
>> without>> requiring an external installer
>> to fiddle with your host.
> 
> ..but not all [potential] users want to do that...
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4377 bytes --]