Bazaar

Bug #388790
Comment #10

Comment 10 for bug 388790

Revision history for this message

Martin Pool (mbp) wrote on 2009-07-02: Re: would be better to have just one Windows installer

#10

I'm asking about it because it does seem to cause some trouble to users, if you look at for instance Guilhem's comment above. I wanted this bug so at least there was a handle for the issue rather than just scattered list threads. Whether this bug is actually fixed as specified, or marked Confirmed/Low, or even if we decide it's not actually a good idea to do it, it's good to have a single url explaining the issue.

I'm not proposing to just drop either the python-based installer or bzr.exe is not a good solution. It seems clear that bzr.exe with the standard plugins provided is what most people use and want. However, people do have some problems with it, and perhaps you will add more:

* whenever there's a choice, understanding which one to use takes some time - perhaps not very much, and perhaps it's clear enough now
* you can't install separate plugins or other bzrlib users to be used with bzr.exe

If we use easy_setup, is that able to bring down win32 binary libraries for the appropriate Python interpreter? If so, that may be pretty good.

We could certainly have an option either in the installer or in bzr itself to enable and disable particular plugins, and beyond that I think plugins should aim to have the minimum impact if they are installed but never used. That would be useful, but it's not really a total solution, because part of the point of plugins is that you can install new ones.

It sounds to me like we can't in fact unify them, but what we should do is, in this order of priority:

* Include bzr-gtk and loggerhead (and whatever else) into the bzr.exe installer. This will satisfy most users most of the time: they don't actually want a python-based installer, they just want particular plugins to be available.
* Fix bzr to work with easy_setup, including installing the right binary extensions -- that gives people a way to install loggerhead or whatever, including its dependencies, if they already have a system python. It will be useful on Unix too. If we do this, will these eggs be a sufficient substitute for the python-based installers, or do they need to be shipped separately?
* Work out how, if at all possible, to make separately-installed plugins work with bzr.exe. (Like comment #4)

I'm asking about it because it does seem to cause some trouble to users, if you look at for instance Guilhem's comment above.  I wanted this bug so at least there was a handle for the issue rather than just scattered list threads.  Whether this bug is actually fixed as specified, or marked Confirmed/Low, or even if we decide it's not actually a good idea to do it, it's good to have a single url explaining the issue.

I'm not proposing to just drop either the python-based installer or bzr.exe is not a good solution.  It seems clear that bzr.exe with the standard plugins provided is what most people use and want.  However, people do have some problems with it, and perhaps you will add more:

* whenever there's a choice, understanding which one to use takes some time - perhaps not very much, and perhaps it's clear enough now 
 * you can't install separate plugins or other bzrlib users to be used with bzr.exe

If we use easy_setup, is that able to bring down win32 binary libraries for the appropriate Python interpreter?  If so, that may be pretty good.

We could certainly have an option either in the installer or in bzr itself to enable and disable particular plugins, and beyond that I think plugins should aim to have the minimum impact if they are installed but never used.  That would be useful, but it's not really a total solution, because part of the point of plugins is that you can install new ones.

It sounds to me like we can't in fact unify them, but what we should do is, in this order of priority:

* Include bzr-gtk and loggerhead (and whatever else) into the bzr.exe installer.  This will satisfy most users most of the time: they don't actually want a python-based installer, they just want particular plugins to be available.
 * Fix bzr to work with easy_setup, including installing the right binary extensions -- that gives people a way to install loggerhead or whatever, including its dependencies, if they already have a system python.  It will be useful on Unix too.  If we do this, will these eggs be a sufficient substitute for the python-based installers, or do they need to be shipped separately?
 * Work out how, if at all possible, to make separately-installed plugins work with bzr.exe.  (Like comment #4)