Uwe Stöhr wrote:
OK, there are two different ways to build the installer:
- Mine: bundling everything that is needed, so the user can download it
one or I can provide a CD and then they only have to click Next a few
times and they have a full featured LaTeX/LyX environment with
everything up to date.
- Yours: Provide the smallest possible installer and ask the user about
installing needed third-party software that is then downloaded on demand.
I also provide a full installer that includes MiKTeX, ImageMagick and
Ghostscript. It can be burned on a CD and installed without having to
download things.
I don't think its woth to invest lots of time again to be able to do
this with the same code base. The major LyX part already has the same
code base.
I'm willing to invest some time and it won't be that difficult.
You don't need to implement new features from my installer because my
special features are designed to produce a bundled installer.
So the easiest way is to leave your way the official installer and my
way a LyX-distribution. I'm not reclaiming that the distribution will be
official as I know that
There is also the official bundled installed. Why don't you want your
features to be merged with that one?
Merging the code to have all features in one script wil cost lot of
time, I fear that I then loose the overview and that it will be hard to
maintain. Having two scripts for two different way doesn't harm.
(Personylly I usually work this way also at work: Use a different
script/file/machine/whatever for its special purpose.)
Two entirely different scripts for the two installers is unacceptable
for me. It would mean that the installers have different bugs, behave
differently etc. That is really difficult to maintain.
Uwe, can you please send a detailed list of missing features? We are not
talking about major differences here. Would you agree with a single
installer code base if I invest the time to merge everything that is
accepted by the developers?
Joost
