1 |
On 05/11/2017 15:48, tuxic@××××××.de wrote: |
2 |
> On 11/05 07:21, Tom H wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 7:11 AM, <tuxic@××××××.de> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 11/05 06:29, Tom H wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:20 AM, <tuxic@××××××.de> wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> |
7 |
>>>>> I got an archive (???) of an Linux application, which |
8 |
>>>>> has the extension "*.AppImage". |
9 |
>>>>> |
10 |
>>>>> What is that? |
11 |
>>>>> |
12 |
>>>>> Is it possible to "unpack" that into something more common? |
13 |
>>>>> How to handle that? |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> Does it use this spec? |
16 |
>>>> |
17 |
>>>> https://appimage.org/ |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> Dont know... |
20 |
>>> How can I unpack that to look into it? |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> From |
23 |
>> https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> wget "https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/releases/download/continuous/appimagetool-x86_64.AppImage" |
26 |
>> etc... |
27 |
>> |
28 |
> |
29 |
> |
30 |
> ./appimagetool-x86_64.AppImage appimagetool-x86_64.AppImage TestApp/. |
31 |
> WARNING: appstreamcli is missing, please install it if you want to use AppStream metadata |
32 |
> appimagetool-x86_64.AppImage is a file, assuming it is an AppImage and should be unpacked |
33 |
> To be implemented |
34 |
> |
35 |
> unpacking is not implemented yet. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
Reading only this thread, it looks like an upstream used a horribly |
39 |
incomplete scheme for distribution that isn't even ready for launch. |
40 |
|
41 |
And yet they distribute using it. |
42 |
|
43 |
I would be questioning why I'm using that upstream's project at all, and |
44 |
find something better by an author with more clue. |
45 |
|
46 |
Am I missing something? |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Alan McKinnon |
51 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |