Re: Rename the package command

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Justin Karneges <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thursday 28 August 2008 23:41:23 Isak Savo wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Jan Niklas Hasse <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Isak Savo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >> The purist in me agree with you. But the pragmatic guy on my shoulder
> > >> says it may not be worth it :)
> > >>
> > >> Mostly because we're solving a problem which I'm not sure exists for
> > >> any of our users... (please convince me otherwise)
> > >
> > > You're right, there's no user which is running into this problem
> > > afaik. But maybe the fix would be for reasons of precaution only.
> > >
> > > I'm also saying this, as the new stub.4.template is directly calling
> > > "package install <myself>" if autopackage 1.4 is installed. That's
> > > another reason, why I would change the name now, before 1.4.
> >
> > I presume this is to solve the execute-package-directly bug, right?
>
> I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I've always had a
> problem where if Autopackage is not installed then a .package can be
> launched
> and installed, but if Autopackage is installed then I have to run 'package
> install' on the .package.  I've always found this to be an annoying
> inconsistency.  Shouldn't running the .package always be enough?
>
> Is this by design or a bug?


I don't know exactly, but I "fixed" it in 1.4.