>> Now, after reading your mail, I still don't understand what would be
>> wrong with providing AltInstaller now and add other installers later.
>
>i dont block AltInstaller, i block EMAltInstaller. it was clear from
>the previous problems that you dont share exactly Uwe's way of preparing
>binary.
>whether AltInstaller survives is dependent on Uwe's decision of the support
>of the official one.
I don't want to continue this long discussion (tl;dr), but I agree
with Pavel: these Alternative Installers should be blocked. We must
focus our efforts in one full featured installer.
If something should be available at installation process, the
discussion must focus on how include it in the official installer and
not in the creation of new one. I really don't see how EMAltInstaller
can be treated as "bonus" (it just confuses users).
On the other hand, I may agree with Michal opinion about the release
candidate. Not exactly because of his arguments, but I found the LyX
2.0 version for Windows very unstable including RC1 (and I'm not
talking about the installer). If LyX Team wants to provide support for
this platform, I think it should be tested a bit more before be called
a stable release.
Regards,
---
Diego Queiroz
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote:
> Michal wrote:
>> ... but why are you telling me this after I've put (wasted?) so much
>> time in building and testing this installer? It's not that I was hiding
>> or anything... knowing this beforehand, I'd have planned things
>> differently.
>
> the key part is that when i asked about taking responsibility to care
> about installer, you declined. thats perfectly fine, but then its unreasonable
> to expect that i'm going to write long mails explaining the situation,
> and doing mail digests from conference exchanges during last months
> for your convenience.
>
> the question about taking part on the official one was on my very
> first mail for beta4 binary, so its not out of the blue either.
>
>> and advertise these well. Blocking out the paths you don't prefer
>> instead, is not a good idea IMHO - especially when this tactic leads to
>> offering no path (installer) whatsoever.
>
> no. single installer has been tried out for several years and i smell
> this is possible for lyx2 now. these two weeks are nothing compared
> to burden we have with providing two different installers and their
> bugfixing for next X years.
>
>> Now, after reading your mail, I still don't understand what would be
>> wrong with providing AltInstaller now and add other installers later.
>
> i dont block AltInstaller, i block EMAltInstaller. it was clear from
> the previous problems that you dont share exactly Uwe's way of preparing
> binary.
> whether AltInstaller survives is dependent on Uwe's decision of the support
> of the official one.
>
>> I mean: the version with completely untested installation process
>> shouldn't be called 'release candidate' at all. According to Wikipedia,
>> in release candidate '... all product features have been designed, coded
>> and TESTED' (emphasis mine).
>
> lyx team releases only tarballs. all installers are - up to now - single
> man shows. i'm not going to stop releases if they disappear to north pole
> or are just busy. either they wake up or somebody new takes the
> responsibility.
> i have been politely asking for months without success so there is probably
> no other way than through this frustration, thats it ;)
>
>> Please, rethink this all - I hope this mail will help somehow...
>> otherwise you are going to needlessly alienate your users, and one day,
>> some EMAltInstaller ('Even More Alternate Installer'), developed abroad,
>> will be an added bonus :)
>
> be sure i was thinking about it a lot and discussed these matters with
> installer guys in backgrounds as well.
>
> see you in better times :) (hopefully)
> pavel
>
