unaccessability

[Ian Malone]

On 9 November 2013 21:47, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something is an application
>>  is by looking for a .desktop file. So in theory you could put a bitchx.desktop file  into the bitchx package and it would appear in the installer. That said I don't
>> think it is generally a bad idea if command line/terminal applications are installed from the command line, but there is no hard policy blocking such applications from making themselves available in the installer.
>>
>
> Please don't let it install applications, which cannot be started via the
> graphical desktop user interface (such as a menu system or a list of
> installed Applications). Users, who install software with the help of a
> graphical program, expect that afterwards they can find and launch the
> installed software via the graphical desktop user interface. Alternatively,
> the installer ought to offer launching something as the next step.

No they don't. I think it's perfectly reasonable that there could be a
GUI program can install components and terminal commands. After all we
can start GUI programs from the command line.

Installer offering to run something for you is something that's always
irritated me ("you've installed this! do you want to run it now?!"). I
can live with it if it's useful for the majority of people, but I
don't see why it's obvious that this "should" happen.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk