I was thinking more along the lines of .deb/.rpm but if it adds complexity to get up and running, certainly, it should not be included. (or perhaps as a breakout page option)
I don’t take that route for my own installations as I’m more familiar with building and cleaning up after myself. Regards, Adrien > On Sep 20, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> > wrote: > > Op donderdag 20 september 2018 19:09:10 CEST schreef Adrien Monteleone: >>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:46 AM, David Cousens <davidcous...@bigpond.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'll set the examples up to default to a /home/user/.local install and >>> then perhaps add an extra section on installing for all users and the >>> various options there and the need for administrator privileges. Most >>> Linux users do get used to that pretty quickly >> >> If the target is going to be casual builders, should the recommendation >> instead include in the recipe the commands to package the app first and >> then install via the system package manager? That would seem a cleaner >> approach and remove the need for retaining build directories for removal, >> having to probably revisit the wiki to figure out how to uninstall just use >> their regular package manager to handle it. > > I think that goes very much in the direction of flatpak, snap and friends. > > I personally don't think adding information on packaging will make it any > easier. This is in general rather challenging in fact. > > Geert > > > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
