Re: A thought on Windows Experience

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 04.12.2013 19:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache.  And
>> the documentation would need adapting as well.  That's not to say
>> anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would
>> likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary
>> installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond
>> for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the
>> other way round.
>>
>> It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then
>> Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things.
>
> I don't know if that's something which could get a sufficient majority
> because it somehow would make Frescobaldi look like an official editor
> ;-)

Not really.  We'd just recommend downloading and installing Frescobaldi
on certain platforms for getting a customary user experience rather than
a command line application.

> Bit I'm quite sure it would be trivial to include such a functionality
> in Fresobaldi.

For a very variable value of "trivial".  But I think it would make sense
to do this distribution of labor/development for platforms where it
would work.

> It would be simple to add a menu item that looks for updates, fetches
> and installs LilyPond, and finally adds it to the list of configured
> LilyPond instances.
> Such a function could easily be added to the installation process of
> Frescobaldi.
>
> Well, maybe a good idea to add that anyway.

It seems like a more common use case to use Frescobaldi for managing
multiple LilyPond's installed by LilyPond's installer than the other way
round, namely managing multiple Frescobaldi instances.

-- 
David Kastrup