The SyMenu collection of portable programs
The SPS scripting engine
|
Gianluca Administrator Posts: 1274
27/02/2016
|
Hello guys.
The new 5.01 version is in translation now so it will be released with a partial scripting engine: we'll only have the scripting before install. Sorry for that but the my release scheduling is too strict to implement the entire feature.
At least when SyMenu is released the before install scripting feature will be available an fully working (I hope).
I will update the SPS Builder just after the SyMenu release to avoid the publication of SPS that require the scripting ability before SyMenu is able to understand it.
Stay tuned.
|
|
|
link
|
|
sl23 Posts: 285
27/02/2016
|
Looking forward to this, thanks for your hard work, much appreciated ;-)
|
|
|
link
|
|
chef Posts: 47
23/06/2019
|
sl23 wrote:
Can we specify an install path yet? If not then this needs adding. Also, double downloads.
For example, AutoIt3 has the SciTe, but, it seems, only the basic package. So, a second download would be required to install this package into:
AutoIT_sps\SciTe\ and overwrite the existing files there.
But is it necessary to have SciTe as a seperate sps in it's own right? Or, just include it with the AutoIt package? Is SciTe useful outside of AutoIt or only if used with AutoIt?
Just thinking, would it be easier for users if stage one was simply repeated? So simply keep the unpack box as is but have a second one for apps requiring double unpack? The second would need to be blank if not required.
edited by sl23 on 04/02/2016
Have you got any feed back on your question about SciTE?
I couldn't see one. I'm new to SyMenu. And I've used SciTE in the past on an older computer with Windows XP, not regularly. And I never used AutoIT. So it has been available seperately and was working seperately. There are various editors with syntax highlighting available. So adding a seperate package just for SciTE within SyMenu will increase the choice available to the users. So far, I've not seen a seperate SPS package for SciTE.
And another SyMenu tool tells me that the version of SciTE included with AutoIT on SyMenu is outdated with version 3.5.4. This other SyMenu tool tells me that other users of this tool have version 4.1.2 of SciTE installed. And another directory for software tells me that the author has already released version 4.1.7 of SciTE.
|
|
|
link
|
|
Gianluca Administrator Posts: 1274
24/06/2019
|
The dependencies release with a certain package is not our business. As SPS editors we release the packages as they are released from their authors.
Since the AutoIT major is still stuck on the 3.3.14.5 (https://www.autoitscript.com/site/autoit-script-editor/downloads/) I can't update it or update one of its dependency (SciTE).
If in your opinion a separate SPS package for SciTE is needed you can try to create it by your own and eventually share it with the community.
I'm always open to new SPS editor and always available to help the newbie!
|
|
|
link
|
|
chef Posts: 47
24/06/2019
|
Gianluca wrote:
The dependencies release with a certain package is not our business. As SPS editors we release the packages as they are released from their authors.
Since the AutoIT major is still stuck on the 3.3.14.5 (https://www.autoitscript.com/site/autoit-script-editor/downloads/) I can't update it or update one of its dependency (SciTE).
This I already learned yesterday when following a recommended reading where you refer of this forum into a thread of another forum in the States.
And as far as I understood, the issue of package management including such dependencies one of the moderators claimed as still open meaning not addressed in a portable manner by any implementation or proposal in that other forum. This means that neither you nor any competitor had addressed this aspect yet. Nobody in that threat made a different claim.
Gianluca wrote:
If in your opinion a separate SPS package for SciTE is needed you can try to create it by your own and eventually share it with the community.
My post was in answer to the questions raised by sl23. He elaborated on handling of packages requiring another download. In that context, he raised several questions with seemingly not getting a reply yet. So I replied on his question if the editor mentioned by him works also without that context of the other package or only in that context. My reply was that it works also without that context.
I continued that the option to have a seperate SPS package for SciTE makes sense as it works also stand alone. Priority would probably not be high as there exist already editors with syntax high lighting in the suite although not yet SciTE as stand alone package.
Before I replied to sl23, I looked up in the suite and found that the situation is still as he reported and no seperate SPS package for SciTE created although another SPS package exists which extends the one included as reported by him for use in the context of another tool.
Gianluca wrote:
If in your opinion a separate SPS package for SciTE is needed you can try to create it by your own and eventually share it with the community.
I'm always open to new SPS editor and always available to help the newbie!
I already new this openness. (You mentioned it in another topic in the forum on a different request to another thread author.)
And as clarified in this response, I see no such need in the sense of requirement. I consider it just an option which makes sense.
So do you recommend me starting to create such a SPS package for learning (and maintaining) a SPS package?
(And I see and learned now that there exists a work around to the limitation of the forum software to support my style of quoting reported in another threat.)
|
|
|
link
|
|
Gianluca Administrator Posts: 1274
24/06/2019
|
chef wrote:
So do you recommend me starting to create such a SPS package for learning (and maintaining) a SPS package?
If you are interested in understanding the SPS technology and offering a contribution of this kind to this community, sure I do.
|
|
|
link
|