Re: Finding installed package files

• Previous message: Kurt von Finck: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• In reply to: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• Next in thread: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• Reply: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:03:11 GMT

Inline:
"Edward Diener" <eldiener_no_spam_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b9k5e.2341$sp3.1372@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Edward, I think what everyone has been trying to tell you is that
>> using Linux requires a different mindset.
>
> I understand that and I was not trying to change how Linux does things. I
> was only suggesting a possibly user-chosen addition to how Linux does
> things.
>
>> I have used Linux in various forms over the years and really like the
>> way some things are done. And I also use Windows. And for "me", I
>> don't expect Linux to be the same experience as Windows.
>> Here is a link that is really good at answering questions for new
>> users of Linux:
>>
>> http://www.linuxquestions.org/
>>
>> I have found answers to a lot of questions there and also using
>> Google. There is so much documentation on line for Linux and Linux
>> apps that a new user should have no problems finding the answers to
>> their questions. One other thing, nearly every app I have installed
>> in Fedora Core 3, has a web link to the author's website. There you
>> can find updates, howto's and all kinds of things.
>> One thing you mention is packages installing a lot of files and
>> finding out what those files do or how you use them(I hope I
>> understand you correctly here.)
>
> You have partially misunderstood me. I do not want to know what every file
> in an installation is about. I do want to know which files in some large
> installations are the ones I can use to accomplish whatever the package
> entails. This includes not only the main executables, but perhaps also the
> documentation, samples, and whatever is instrumental to using the package.

Ok, now, I understand what you are getting at.

>> As a Windows programmer, I can tell
>> you that Windows apps. install a lot of files too. And there is no
>> way that you will ever see documentation on how each of those files
>> are used in your application. It would be impossible to list what
>> each dll and other needed files are there for.
>
> Since you know how Windows does things, then you know that when a product is
> installed it has the option to create a program group in which each item in
> that group points to some important file in the installation. Usually having
> this program group is helpful to the Windows user because the key files of
> that program group are shown with links to those files. As an example, in
> Microsoft's own Visual Studio .NET 2003 creates a program group with these
> items: link to the Visual Studio 2003 IDE, link to the MSDN documentation,
> subfolder which contains links to common tools which one uses in conjunction
> with the using the IDE. Now imagine if this was not provided. I would then
> be searching for the executable and its command line for invoking the IDE,
> for the executable and its command line for invoking the documentation, and
> both the names of the supporting tools and their commands, in order to use
> them. By creating a program group Microsoft is making it easier for me to
> instantly use those areas of the installation which matter.

I see what you mean here. I too use VS.NET 2003 and what you are trying to say
is you want something like how it (meaning VS.NET) is shown on the Start Menu.
You would like to see the added Tools and Documentation (which in the case of
VS.NET 2003, is on sub-menus of the Main menu) like the C++ Debugger, Spy++
etc. linked to , without having to use a command line to get to the extra tools.
Is that correct?

> Now I realize that Linux is different, that it places the files of an
> installed package in generally regular places, and that I can use the rpm
> command to find out the names of those files and where they are. For most
> commands there are 'man' pages to tell me the way to use that command. I do
> not argue with that. I can also see that for a great number of packages, all
> one needs to see or know is the name of a single command, and then one just
> invokes that command and uses the 'man' page to understand how it works. I
> have no argument with this tried and true method.
>
> But there are packages for Linux which, much like the installation of Visual
> Studio .NET 2003, create a large number of commands, documentation, and
> whatever else etc. In order to use these packages effectively one has to
> find out what the important parts of the installation are simply by studying
> the list of files which the package installs. I do not think this is that
> easy, but perhaps experienced Linux users know ways in which they instantly
> understand in such a large scale package what and how to use it. My simple
> suggestion, however, is that, for such large scale Linux installations, a
> program group on the desktop, or even some directory beneath the user's home
> if you will, be optionally creatable which contains links to certain salient
> files of that installation which make it easier to use the package.

 I don't have my Linux setup running at the moment, so I cannot check this, but,
I do believe that some apps do have sub-menus with added tools & doc's listed
from the main menu. It may be possible to reconfigure the Main Menu in KDE or
Gnome to do something like that. I do know that some applications that are not
included in a Distro , that you install from another source (such as a website) usually
do not add anything to the Main Menu.
I installed Gambas ( a Basic Programming IDE) and had to first compile it and then
make an install setup and then ran the install and after that point I ran it , first from
a command line. But, later I created an Icon on the Desktop and set it to run Gambas.
And that works really good. But, I have not tried to add it to the Main Menu.

> Please notice I am not trying to change the way installations work. I am
> only suggesting an optional improvement, which can be chosen by the user
> when the command to install the large scale package is given, and then only
> for packages which want to use that option, to make it easier for the end
> user to see the most important parts of what has been installed after the
> installation is finished.
>
> Also realize that the way Windows installations usually work is to create
> the program group, but it is certainly not mandated that the installation
> program do so. Similarly, with my suggestion, the way Linux packages will
> almost certainly usually work will be to not create a program group ( or
> directory ), since most Linux packages are fairly simple usages. But some
> will, especially large scale packages whose usage involves much more than
> either a single command or a simple 'man' page, and that will be very
> beneficial to the Linux user, especially those who are not as experienced as
> your Linux guru.
>
> I hardly deem this suggestion as either revolutionary or complicated. I do
> not mind that many experienced Linux users find it unnecessary. But I do
> mind when they can not even understand why it might be beneficial to others
> even if they feel that the benefit is not worth changing anything in the way
> that Linux installations are generally done.

I don't think that your suggestion is out of the ordinary or complicated. As I have
only recently started working on building an application (for a test at the moment)
for Linux, for a potential client that wants to mix WindowsXP & Linux. (very long
story) I cannot say how hard it would be to impliment the ideas you have with the
current installers for Linux. Or wheather or not you would have to build a custom
installer to make it work the way you suggest. I am used to using what comes with
Visual Studio to do installs in Windows.
However, I did try a simple test app written in RealBasic (in their Windows IDE) that
compiled for both Windows & Linux, and all I had to do was run the executable in
Linux. ( after telling Linux that the file could be executed). Pretty simple.
But, it seems to me that the installers that come with different distros may not all be
able to add an application and it's tools, documentation to the Main Menu. That is
something I will have to investigate.
james

• Previous message: Kurt von Finck: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• In reply to: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• Next in thread: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• Reply: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]