Re: [Nautilus-list] Idea for Nautilus and GMC.
- From: Pavel Machek <pavel ucw cz>
- To: Joe Shaw <joe ximian com>
- Cc: nautilus-list eazel com, mc gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Nautilus-list] Idea for Nautilus and GMC.
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 22:44:36 +0200
> > We are not talking about bootsrap here. Miguel wants to modify
> > nautilus, so this is case when you have already Nautilus
> > installed.
> I thought your beef was with installers, not setting the execute bit
> with Nautilus?
Okay. Miguel said that he wants to modify nautilus to make binary
installers easier. I do not like that.
Binary installers in bootstrap cases are probably neccessary evil, but
I would hate to see binary installers more than absolutely neccessary.
> > Installed nautilus means that you probably have gnorpm already, right?
> I wouldn't bet on it. Ximian GNOME doesn't include gnorpm, and it's
> never been considered a core part of GNOME so there's a fair chance that
> it isn't installed.
If nautilus at least has right click on rpm doing rpm -i <package>, it
should be fine. gnorpm is not strictly needed.
> > No?
> > .rpm is ugly header + cpio archive.
> > .deb is ar archive + tar archive.
> > Looks pretty close to tarball to me.
> Just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*. There are extraneous
> circumstances when this is necessary, like when people break their RPM
> setup, but doing this defeats the purpose of having packages in the
> first place... you might as well use slackware.
No, because I still can rpm -i.
What should be default action on rpm is interesting question... I'd
guess that opening it as tar is obviously safe. Installing it may
bring some "interesting" security problems.
The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
] [Thread Prev