On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:23 AM, John McNamee <j...@microwiz.com> wrote: > Does anybody outside of Microsoft really like MSI? Wouldn’t a package > format based on ZIP archives be a better cultural fit for open source > software? I know MSI is the supported method for installing SxS > assemblies. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that isn’t an issue. > What other advantages do you see in MSI? Are those advantages worth it?
IMO MSI is just an implementation 'detail'. > (2) Shallow forks vs. upstream support > > I understand that shallow forks are needed to get started, but I hope the > ultimate goal is getting CoApp adopted by as many upstream packages as > possible. I have a dream that some day, I'll be able to grab the latest > code for random open source projects and build them on Windows as easily as > on Unix. There's no reason not to get upstream support. > (3) CMake > > Have you looked at CMake (http://www.cmake.org)? There are several > cross-platform build systems out there, and none has emerged as a clear > standard. However, my observation is that CMake has gained the greatest > acceptance. Could CoApp leverage CMake? IMO it's ok but not good. Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
