7 Dec 2008 19:01
Re: Rename the package command
On Thursday 28 August 2008 23:41:23 Isak Savo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jan Niklas Hasse <jhasse@...> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Isak Savo <isak.savo@...> wrote: > >> The purist in me agree with you. But the pragmatic guy on my shoulder > >> says it may not be worth it :) > >> > >> Mostly because we're solving a problem which I'm not sure exists for > >> any of our users... (please convince me otherwise) > > > > You're right, there's no user which is running into this problem > > afaik. But maybe the fix would be for reasons of precaution only. > > > > I'm also saying this, as the new stub.4.template is directly calling > > "package install <myself>" if autopackage 1.4 is installed. That's > > another reason, why I would change the name now, before 1.4. > > I presume this is to solve the execute-package-directly bug, right? I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I've always had a problem where if Autopackage is not installed then a .package can be launched and installed, but if Autopackage is installed then I have to run 'package install' on the .package. I've always found this to be an annoying inconsistency. Shouldn't running the .package always be enough? Is this by design or a bug? -Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: autopackage-dev-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: autopackage-dev-help@...
RSS Feed