Justin Karneges | 7 Dec 19:01 2008

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?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: autopackage-dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: autopackage-dev-help@...