[openbeos] Re: Do we want to recreate SoftwareValet/PackageBuilder?

  • From: Shaka <shaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 11:22:17 -0400

if I can throw 2 cents in.. One of the things I initially fell in love with in BeOS was the small executable apps that can run from anywhere (and moved) without the need to be installed all over the system. K. I. SSimple! The OSX method achieves self-containment by borrowing a RISC OS concept of having an application folder with a special extension (.app) that the system looks at as executable (given the proper contents) but still many apps have preferences and 'application support' files scattered throughout the system.
On our system Pref's could be managed from file attributes right? The OSX system is decent, but the executable folder concept to me is more cumbersome where a single executable is possible.

Also, I think a Software Valet compatible installer would be preferred to re-creation, and should be relatively easy as a .PKG is for the most part a zipped folder with a shell script for installing (If I remember correctly...)


On May 9, 2006, at 9:26 AM, DarkWyrm wrote:

Being able to support SV packages would be a good thing, I think, if you consider the number of them on BeBits that are available. mphipps has had the intention of us going to something more like OS X app bundles, but I think that there should be a packaging system which handles some of the limitations of that system (like add-ons and shared libraries) in addition to using them. IOW, I think it's a good idea to be able to support the packages, but not recreate SoftwareValet in its entirety.


Other related posts: