[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Status of Installer.app?
From: |
Adrian Robert |
Subject: |
Re: Status of Installer.app? |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:01:17 -0500 |
On Feb 14, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Frederico Muñoz wrote:
The Installer I'm making relies on bundles to support different
package formats. The expected package info is put on a protocol and
bundles must adhere to it, thus the actual mechanism of getting the
info (that is highly dependent on the packaging format) is abstracted.
My main testing bundle is the .deb one, but e.g. I make a Pkg bundle
that could read NeXT/OPenStep .pkg's (see a somewhat old example at
http://www.gesal.org/gnustep/installer_pkg.jpg). This can be extended
to any packaging format.
Thanks, I'll look this over, and try helping if I can. I'm most
interested in the .pkg format since I want to make just one package
that Hatters, Debian people, etc. can all install on their systems.
(If an app gets "healthy" enough, distribution maintainers will
hopefully package it specifically for each distribution anyway.) Are
we legally able to use .pkg for GNUstep?
For the multiple steps sequence a problem arises. My idea would be to
have a bundle that supported the OSX .pkg format (basically the NeXT
format on steroids, with preFlight, postFlight, available volume size
checking,etc). This however has a great impact on the UI. I chose from
the begining to base my work on the NeXT installer, that basically
presents all the info and then lets you install.
I meant multiple steps on the "back end" -- e.g., install a framework,
run a script that builds a package or tool using this library, install
that, etc.. Maybe not that necessary.. I think NeXTstep just put such
things in separate install packages, and that wasn't that bad.