From: ba0571 AT chlothar DOT bamberg DOT baynet DOT de (Michael Lemke) Subject: Re: To _USE_ or not to use InstallShield? 11 May 1998 17:16:30 -0700 Message-ID: <3556C12F.16C4C69C.cygnus.gnu-win32@mail.bamberg.baynet.de> References: <13653 DOT 7515 DOT 940000 DOT 415863 AT STRAT> Reply-To: ai26 AT a400 DOT sternwarte DOT uni-erlangen DOT de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: "John A. Turner" Cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com, michael AT sternwarte DOT uni-erlangen DOT de John A. Turner wrote: > $Bill Luebkert writes: > > > I'm very UNIX-centric and like to know what's happening when I install > > something. With a zip or tar or gz file, I know exactly what's going > > to happen when I install it. Everyone on Win95/NT has Winzip which can > > handle all three of these guys. > > [snip] > > > Go for simplicity; go for obvious; go for in-plain-sight; go > > for I-know-what's-happening-when-the-install-runs; go for zip or > > tar.gz; down with InstallShield! > > Michael Lemke, Sternwarte Bamberg, writes: > > > Well, I don't know what InstallShield does, seriously. But I do know > > what tar,zip etc do and how to reverse it. I hate things done behind > > my back. All these .exe files you don't know what's inside. Terrible. > > Bill and Michael (and/or anyone else who agrees with this argument), > please tell me if you also eschew the Unix packaging formats like the > ones I mentioned above. If so, well, OK, at least your stand is > consistent. If not, then please explain why your position is not > inconsistent. Actually, I don't like .rpm, .deb and similar. However, they seem slightly better to me than InstallShield and they do provide a functionality that tar alone doesn't. But that functionality is not necessary for the initial install of gnuwin. There we need everything so a .zip or .tgz works best and I know it won't do more than copy a bunch of files to a place I specify. Guaranteed. > > XEmacs binaries are distributed for Solaris via pkgadd format and for > Linux as RPMs. It's also distributed as tarballs. So why bother with > the package formats? Because a lot of Solaris and Linux binaries are > distributed that way, and people like the ease of install/uninstall > they provide. > > So I ask again, how is InstallShield different? > > As for "we don't know what's inside", it's a matter of trusting the > source; in this case Cygnus. But using the MS (is it?) product leaves a bad taste. > > Robertson, Jason V writes: > > > Anyway, I can't think of a single convincing argument not to use > > InstallShield if it's done right. > > Nor can I. What about people who want to extract from Linux onto the W95 partition? Or look what's inside from a non-Windows machine? Split the contents for writing onto floppies? > > Weiqi Gao writes: > > > And this could be acomplished by a simple entry in the FAQ (or the > > release note): What does the InstallShield installation do exactly? The > > answer would typically tell people what files are installed where, and > > what registry settings are created, modified, deleted. I don't think > > the automation done by InstallShield is that different from "make > > install". > > [snip] > > I agree with this. I don't. Yet another file to read before I know what's happening. make install is indeed similar but not required for the initial binary install of gnuwin. And I can always first try to do understand the Makefile, do the make install from a normal user account and see what it tries to do to the system. -- Michael Lemke Sternwarte Bamberg, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany (michael AT astro DOT as DOT utexas DOT edu or ai26 AT a400 DOT sternwarte DOT uni-erlangen DOT de) - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".