[Gpg4win-devel] Claws Mail status
wk at gnupg.org
Tue Sep 30 15:33:41 CEST 2008
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:13, marcus.brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de said:
> For builds that are straight out of svn the default name should be ok.
I don't think so.
What comes out of the build process depends on the a[pckages your have
copied to packages/. It is quite possible to use different version and
not those from packages.current. In fact, Gpg4win was designed as a
meta installer and not as a packaging tool for one specific set of
tools. Ture, we now have quite some dependencies on current versions
and older versons of some packages won't work; but that does not change
the fact that it is quie possible to build different stuff.
What I am concerned about most is helping users. Users need to be able
to tell what software they installed. We can't expect them to send the
README file which includes the version numbers. Worse, when installing
on top of something, this information is not any longer true. Thus the
easiest way is to ask them for the name of the file they downloaded and
We already have this problem with the vanilla gpg: There is the gpg
binary from ftp.gnupg.org, there is the one which comes with gpg4win and
there are several other installers which include gpg. It is often not
easy to figure out what version it actually is. Now with several
identically named gpg4win installers which are all build on other
machines and with other sets of packages this will lead to even more
Also think about search engines: Someone tells you to install
gpg4win-1.2.3-svn4711.exe, you employ a search engine, that one yields a
list of several locations for the file, you pick one, download it and
wonder why it does not has an option to install, say, Claws.
Thus, I consider it important to have distinguishable installer names.
Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org
Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz.
More information about the Gpg4win-devel