Re: windows installer

[Jostein Kjønigsen]

Let's pause and take a look at the high level overview of what we have here:

• A working "normal" Windows installer, which has issues which still needs to be resolved.
  There may even be some GNU-level initiatives which must be committed to and finalized (code-signing certificates, etc).
  
  
• Discussion about a "portable" installer, and what people want that to be and do.
  The portable installer will also need all these fixes which the regular installer needs before it can be useful.
  

Right now I can see there's quite a lot of bike-shedding about just what a portable installer *is*, and what it should *do*. My impression was that there's a standard definition, established conventions and that this really not being a matter open for debate? But I may be wrong and  as such I guess some discussion is good.

Right now though there's so much discussion about the portable installer to the point that I can't find any other discussion about the main installer at all.

And considering how the portable installer most likely is going to be used by a minority of Windows-users, and that it directly depends on the work on the main Windows-installer to be deliverable at all... To me that seems very much like the wrong way to go about things.

So could we all please focus on getting the main, normal Windows-installer landed before detouring into how we want the portable installer to differ and how to best achieve that?

(And once again: Stellar work Phillip! Really appreciated!)

--

Vennlig hilsen

Jostein Kjønigsen

address@hidden 🍵 address@hidden

https://jostein.kjonigsen.net

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017, at 09:12 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:

Il 14 novembre 2017 alle 17.31 Fabrice Popineau <address@hidden> ha scritto:

2017-11-14 15:36 GMT+01:00 Angelo Graziosi <address@hidden>:

Fabrice Popineau ha scritto:

The best portable program is the one you can install with unzip. And it

is already the case for Emacs.

No. After you have unzipped and started Emacs, where do you think it will

write the .emacs.d folder?

And why do you care about .emacs.d that much ?

You can setup emacs using the site-lisp directory if you don't want to

write to your host in ~/.emacs.d.

You are using "portable" with a meaning a bit different from the one which

is discussed here... It should not write the host machine.

I don't think so.  I have already been there in the past and for longer you

seem to imagine.

My point is that you can configure everything from within emacs without

requiring an external installer

to fiddle with your host.

..but not all [potential] users want to do that...