On 26 Jan 2010, at 17:09 , Glenn Linderman wrote: > >>> Why can't we just be like the rest of the universe and have one >>> icon type for packages and one icon type for applications. >>> >>> Double click them and they get filed in the right place. >>> >> >> What platform files things in the right place when you double click >> them? > > This is still an open question.
Not quite platform-level, but I recall this coming up in the "indie" mac development scene a few months ago [1]: Mac apps are usually a single .app package (a file tree which looks like a single file) which is "installed" by copying it into /Applications. But that isn't mandatory by any mean, and apparently new users to the platform forget that step and just launch the application from the download folder (if the application was in a zip and got unzipped) or from the .dmg archive (which is basically a mounted read-only disk image). Or they drop the application in the doc itself, which creates a shortcut to the content of the dmg or to the unzipped application in ~/downloads. Neither of these are very good, though they do work (generally) the former makes a mess out of the download folder, and the latter requires having thousands of dmgs open which is a pain (and the user has to keep the dmg files). So in the line of Sparkle, for those and other reasons, some applications started asking if they should move themselves to the Applications folder when launched from out of it. Two of these are Delicious Library and The Hit List [2] whose developers open-sourced the application-moving code [3]. 1: http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/how_should_mac_apps_be_distributed 2: http://www.potionfactory.com/node/251 3: http://github.com/potionfactory/LetsMove/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
