On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:23:26PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:14:37AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Also, which installer are you planning to ship on spice-space.org? Both? > > > Only one of these? > > > > No idea either. It takes a lot of space though, but space is cheap, isn't > > it? Otherwise I would stick to machine installer only. > > My point is that most people don't want to have to choose between 4 > different links when they are looking for a Windows SPICE client. > The fact that the changelog does not explain at all why we want such an > installer (it only says 'because we can') does not help making an informed > review of the patch. > I'm technically fine with the patch (ie ACK), but would like to have some > rationale about why we want this (will be useful when someone wonders 5 years > from now why such an installer was introduced ;) Has anyone actually asked us to provide a extra user installer ? If there is no user demand for it, then I don't think we should do this, since as you say, it will cause confusion as to which is best to download. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
