[wpkg-users] [wpkg] Feature requests and questions

Kristofer Kiik kristofer.kiik at gmail.com
Sun Dec 11 16:46:16 CET 2005

On 12/10/05, Jens Geile <jens.geile at mzbs.de> wrote:
> > > > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Adding_Extensions_using_the_Windows_Registry
> > > I read that page and i must say: "What the fuck are those idiots doing?" The documentation is totally useless and either i'm too stupid to follow the incomplete instructions or this just doesn't work.
> > > Either way i can't get it to work no matter what i try.
> > The instructions there are pretty good and complete i would say.  Just try to read them from the beginning and then continue up to the very end while following them.
> As if i haven't done that already ... Maybe you could enlighten me? Best way would be a working example of how the registry entry should look like ...

I am not going to quote the referred webpage again. It works.
1. Unpack the extension
2. Copy it to client
3. Put the path into the registry _just as stated in the referred document_

If i wanted to enlighten you, i would have to copy the page here, just
try to read it.

it is not even that long - it shouldnt take you more than an afternoon
to get through it.

> > How would this make things easier? Your only gain is by getting rid of some <package> beginning and end tags at the same time introducing aditional check and install id tags. This only complicates matters and makes packages.xml editing more prone for errors.
> The Firefox Extensions are just an example. Just think about Windows or MS Office Updates. You DON'T want to have a package entry for every single entry. Each time a new update comes out you'd have to add it to packages.xml and then edit profiles.xml too. With multiple checks/installs per package you'd only have to edit packages.xml. And if you have a webinterface to edit it the chance to mess it up doesnt increase at all too.

It makes things more difficult by introducing double logic:

right now we have package <> check(s) setup

by your suggestion we would have multiple packages <> multiple checks
relationships. That would complicate things on the wpkg.js script side
much much more than it simplifies package management. Tha gain as i
showed will be in a COUPLE OF BYTES for the whole packages.xml, but it
would make things much much more complicated programmatically. Anyway,
i beleive, you can make up the patch if you insist on this feature and
Tomasz might include it... No need to get all that excited.


wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users at lists.wpkg.org

More information about the wpkg-users mailing list