Sorry for list spam, just testing a method of tagging discussions.
2010/5/19 Roberto Carlos González Flores
> I gues that i'm a command line guy too, because i think we need to study
> wget.
>
> 2010/5/18 Mark Stone
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Ted Bullock
>> wrote>
>> >
>> > Hmm, jus
I know it's early days yet, but I thought the GStreamer audio/video
framework was worthy of attention, both because it's quite popular, and
because it's really hard to build on Windows.
http://gstreamer.org/features/index.html
https://launchpad.net/hsbuild is GStreamer's Windows build system, and
I've started a glossary section on http://coapp.org/Blueprints/Definitions.
Feel free to add/delete/move as necessary. Some of the definitions may
require links to MSDN or their own separate wiki page. If the glossary gets
too big for that page, we can move it off into its own page under
Blueprint
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Adam Kennedy
wrote:
> Off the top of my head...
>
> WiX already has elements in it to add something to the game explorer,
> so it isn't an action.
>
> Likewise, folder structure isn't an action either.
>
> Activation keys are ne
Is it a case of all or nothing though? I didn't think the examples I listed
above were too crazy...
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Garrett Serack wrote:
> No.
>
>
>
> If there are custom actions that need supporting they are going to have to
> be added to what CoApp supports.
>
>
>
> Custom A
No.
If there are custom actions that need supporting they are going to have to be
added to what CoApp supports.
Custom Actions are one of the worst parts and most abused features in MSI.
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounce
Hi,
Do you think each package type should have pre and post install actions?
For example,
* an executable package might register itself to the Games Explorer on
Vista/7 after installation
* a source package might need a very specific folder structure
* an executable might require non-CoApp resourc
On 5/19/2010 11:22 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Andrew Fenn wrote:
>>
>> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
>> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause
>> to it.
>
> IMNSHO, you *really* don't want to do that. You'd be leaping
> into t
I'm not getting moderation requests for the messages.
I've just had a couple messages go out that took forever to get to their
destination. I think it's the fact that I'm on a dogfood exchange server
(running bleeding-edge bits)
G
-Original Message-
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garr
On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 19:34:11, Garrett Serack wrote:
> Sent from work at 10:34
Greylisting problems? The message arrived at my mailbox at 19:35:31
CEST (the previous one arrived at 19:34:43 CEST).
--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >
Smile, tomorrow will be worse
Sent from work at 10:34
___
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
I'm sending this at 10:33
--
==
Garrett Serack
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help : h
Boogers.
___
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
Andrew Fenn wrote:
>
> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause
> to it.
IMNSHO, you *really* don't want to do that. You'd be leaping
into the world of 'licence proliferation,' which is a maze
of twisty l
Wow.
Long thread, little traction.
As I mentioned at the beginning regarding forked code:
Shallow-forks of other projects should maintain the licenses of
their upstream originators.
And regarding the choice of AL 2.0 over BSD:
I *have* spoken to lawyers regarding this, and the sign
The project group on Launchpad does not provide a 'namespace' for projects.
So there is already a zlib package at http://launchpad.net/zlib
Since we need our own development branch for this, we need to have our own
project for it. And we can't just call it zlib (there is already one!).
So we ne
ubuntu packages are under an ubuntu/ namespace, so I'm assuming we can get a
coapp namespace.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Adam Baxter wrote:
>
>> How does Ubuntu do all of their packages?
>>
>> I don't think they need to all have t
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Adam Baxter wrote:
> 50k multiplied by how many downloads/packages? ;)
This is about the engine, not about the tiny action DLL that'll be in
each packet.
Olaf
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Adam Baxter wrote:
> How does Ubuntu do all of their packages?
>
> I don't think they need to all have the co- prefix because by being linked
> to the CoApp project we know the context of them.
>
> Namespace conflicts?
Olaf
__
19 matches
Mail list logo
