Re: [Hampshire] Application installers

>> Some of the filenames within those packages have version numbers
>> appended,
>> some don't.
>
> And the ones that don't have a version number must work with every
> version or the whole thing will fail.

No, that's not true.

You set up what you use with your environment - by using $PATH, for example.

> This is the same thing. Instead of appending a version number you are
> prepending some extra directories.

There is no other way to do it; with the file systems we hav available,
two files may not occupy the same filespec.

But claiming that this means you can't use packages is purely
erroneous;you can.

> In the perfect world, where every user has root access or does not
> have to wait a week for their IT provider to turn up and do an
> install, you would be absolutely right.

So if there is a problem installing stuff system-wide, allow users to
install locally to their home areas until that system-wide problem is
resolved. And if that means 1000 users doing multi-gigabyte installations,
then that's clearly a problem that needs highlighting to IT.

> Our customers require this.

I'd bet they don't. Most such "requirements" are merely a lack of
communication.

> The "wait a week for their IT to do an
> install" comment may sound like fiction but sadly, particularly in the
> larger companies, it is becoming more and more the norm.

If it's a line-of-business application, it will get sorted PDQ. IT
departments know why they exist...

Vic.