<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 04/28/2011 03:06 PM, Alex Bevilacqua wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikDgu6V87SPsNJ6jJa3U-1sPmDYPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I personally would prefer NSIS over InnoDB, but I'm
curious if it may make more sense to investigate BitRock instead.
Though it's proprietary, they offer an open source license (which
I'm sure ScummVM would have no trouble proving eligibility for
:P).
<div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Since it's proprietary I am strongly against it, even *if* they
would give us some open source license.<br>
<br>
Let's quite their homepage:<br>
<br>
> For our projects that are not fully open source, such as our
multiplatform <a
href="http://bitrock.com/products_installbuilder_overview.html">installation
tool</a>, we provide free, fully-functional licenses to other Open
Source projects.<br>
<br>
No way I would want to have us provide installers built from an
closed source project.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikDgu6V87SPsNJ6jJa3U-1sPmDYPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>The benefits of this choice would be (some overlap with
NSIS/InnoDB):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Multiplatform Support: InstallBuilder installers are native
binaries that can run on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, 2008,
Vista, 7, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris (Intel &
Sparc), AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, and Linux (Intel x86/x64, Itanium,
s390 & PPC).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can't even say how much I hate such installers on Linux, usually
they suck, they don't integrate properly into the package management
of your favorite distro etc. So I am against this.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikDgu6V87SPsNJ6jJa3U-1sPmDYPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>RPM Integration: BitRock installers can register your
software with the RPM package database, combining ease of use
with the powerful RPM package management system.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Great... Our porters for RPM based distros are probably better off
creating custom RPMs. That will probably help in proper dependancy
management on the distros libraries we depend on too.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikDgu6V87SPsNJ6jJa3U-1sPmDYPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Auto-Update Functionality: InstallBuilder 6.0 includes
an automatic update feature that enables you to deliver updates
directly to your users. By providing regular updates to users,
you'll keep them running your best available version, resulting in
increased customer satisfaction and reduced support costs.
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't even want to know how crappy this is on Linux.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikDgu6V87SPsNJ6jJa3U-1sPmDYPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>RPM and DEB generation: In addition to creating native
executables that can register with the RPM subsystem,
InstallBuilder can generate RPM and Debian packages that can be
installed using native package management tools.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So how does dependancy handling work here? Anyway even if it's not
that crappy I am still against it.<br>
<br>
<br>
So all in all: No to BitRock.<br>
<br>
// Johannes<br>
</body>
</html>