17 May 02:07
Re: Experimental "app" support
Bastian Eicher <bastian <at> eicher.net>
2012-05-17 00:07:29 GMT
2012-05-17 00:07:29 GMT
> 2. Desktop integration: the Windows version already has a concept of > applications which are "integrated" into the environment (e.g. adding > shell commands and menu entries). I think this makes sense. Apps bring > this to POSIX systems too (though currently a single shell command is > the only launcher allowed). Bastian, could we merge these systems > somehow? I certainly hope so. The Windows version provides the commands "0install add-app", "0install integrate-app" and "0install remove-app". %appdata%\0install.net\desktop-integration\app-list.xml stores the current configuration, i.e. which applications are integrated in what fashion. This enables the current set of integrations to be repaired/reapplied, synced to other machines or rolled back. Since a number of Windows integration points require dedicated executables instead of a command-lines like "0launch URI", the desktop integration code automatically generates stub executables (similar to 0alias) as needed. How about using the same commands and app-list.xml backing storage for POSIX but generate app bundle directories as your branch does instead of stub executables? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
RSS Feed