James C. Ahlstrom <jim@interet.com> wrote:
IMHO putting shared libs in an archive is a bad idea because the OS can not use them there. They must be extracted as you say. But then storage is wasted by using space in the archive and the external file. Deleting them after use wastes time. Better to leave them out of the archive and provide for them in the installer. IMHO the archive is a basic simple feature, and people make installers on top of that. Archives shouldn't try to do it all.
have you tried it? if not, why do you think you should be allowed to forbid others from doing it? in "the inmates are running the asylum", alan cooper points out that the *major* reason people all over the world love web applications are that there are no bloody installers. and here you are advocating that we all should be forced to use installers, when python makes it trivial to write self-installing apps. double-argh! (on the other hand, why do I complain? all pythonworks customers is going to be able to do all this anyway...). <rant size="major"> frankly, this "design by committee" (or is it "design by people who've never even been close to implementing something because they thought it was too hard, and thus think they're qualified to argue against those of us who didn't even realize that it was a hard problem"?) trend I've been seeing in all kinds of python forums makes me sooooo sad. the more of this I see (dist- utils-sig, doc-sig, here, c.l.python), the sadder I get, and the more I sympathise with John Skaller who's defining his own python-like universe... if someone needs me, I'll be down in the pub having a beer with the mad scientist, the shiny eff-bot, and mr. nitpicker. if we're not there, you'll find us in the lab, working on new string matching facilities for 1.6, SOAP [1], tkinter replacements for the masses, and whatever else we can come up with... see you! </rant> 1) http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=Coenz0bWbu0znmdKXqq