coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Elizabeth M Smith <emsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/28/2010 8:39 PM, Rivera, Rafael wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> Regarding #2: This came up during the summit and we all agreed there
> would be a "portable" installation flag/command. This would allow you to
> deploy an application to a custom location, like a USB flash memory.
> Surprise! :)
>
> /rafael
>
> On 6/28/2010 7:11 PM, ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
>    
> > Second topic, was about installing software.  I remember reading on the
> > wiki that the installer would use the MSI format.  Not that familiar with
> > the format (usually prefer zip files and tarballs).  However, can't help
> > wondering how applications like portable apps (programs that run on
> > removable drives or flash drives) will fit into the picture.  Removable
> > drives fill a nice niche between cloud computing and having everything
> > local to one machine.  You can take your programs and data with you
> > anywhere to any Windows system and work.  If the install program ends up
> > tying a program to the registry or expecting it to be on a particular
> > drive at all times, it'll make it difficult to use the applications
> > provided by CoAPP as portable apps.  It would be nice if CoAPP could host
> > portable apps alongside regular applications that tie in to the registry
> > and use helpful Windows features like defaulting file extensions to a
> > particular program.  Has any thought about how to handle a typical
> > portable app (a program that's meant to be installed to a flash drive or
> > removeable drive) within the project?
> >
> >      
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>    

And we should have written that down on the wiki (oops) - although I 
believe it was mentioned in the summit notes.

Because of the position of the project as a member of Codeplex 
foundation - contributing to the actual client tools and developer tools 
will need to remain under CLA - this is no different then apache 
foundation projects.

However contributing to other projects to make them work with and 
cooperate with Coapp is an entirely different story - patches going to 
other projects will need to be under the project's license.

I'm not sure if there has been talk about documentation licensing, but I 
agree that it needs to be stated what licensing the documentation is 
released under, that it should NOT be the same as the source code (that 
leads to a mess of trouble) and that it should never be in the actual 
source code files (I've run into SUCH headaches with that).  As for me I 
don't really care what license is used for the documentation, just 
something that is more suited to written text instead of code.

Documentation is the most overlooked part of the project and often the 
most important.... so who wants to write that wiki page on portable 
application support ...

Thanks,
Elizabeth M Smith